| Page Range | 75921-76200 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 76199 - International Day of Persons With Disabilities, 2015 | |
| 80 FR 76197 - Helsinki Human Rights Day, 2015 | |
| 80 FR 76193 - Delegation of Reporting Functions Specified in Section 941 of the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act | |
| 80 FR 75921 - Presidential Determination Pursuant to Section 1245(d)(4)(B) and (C) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 | |
| 80 FR 76021 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 80 FR 76051 - National Science Board; Sunshine Act Meetings; Notice | |
| 80 FR 75965 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 80 FR 76001 - Sunshine Act Notice | |
| 80 FR 76020 - Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Releases Impairment File Formats for Forward Auction | |
| 80 FR 75956 - Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 | |
| 80 FR 76031 - Sovereignty in Indian Education | |
| 80 FR 76033 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Integrated Resource Management Plan for the Nez Perce Reservation in North Central Idaho | |
| 80 FR 76059 - Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption; Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler) | |
| 80 FR 76064 - Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Denial of an Exemption Application From Atwood Forest Products, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 76062 - Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Denial of an Exemption Application From the Entertainer Motorcoach Council | |
| 80 FR 76016 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 76061 - Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Exemption Renewal for Bendix Commercial Vehicles Systems LLC | |
| 80 FR 76015 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Consolidated Superfund Information Collection Request (Renewal) | |
| 80 FR 75948 - Environmental Protection Agency Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR); Ratification of Unauthorized Commitments | |
| 80 FR 76029 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection for: Information Resource Center Customer Satisfaction Survey | |
| 80 FR 76028 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Mortgagee's Certification of Fees and Escrow and Security Bond Against Defects | |
| 80 FR 76029 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Mark-to-Market Program: Requirements for Community-Based Non-Profit Organizations and Public Agencies | |
| 80 FR 75971 - Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited First Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order | |
| 80 FR 75968 - Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review; 2013-2014 | |
| 80 FR 75972 - Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results, Preliminary Intent To Rescind, and Partial Rescission of the 20th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 | |
| 80 FR 75967 - Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order | |
| 80 FR 75966 - Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 | |
| 80 FR 76020 - Notice of Termination; 10069 Neighborhood Community Bank, Newnan, Georgia | |
| 80 FR 75957 - Effectiveness of Licensing Procedures for Exportation of Agricultural Commodities, Medicine, and Medical Devices to Sudan and Iran; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 76047 - Quality Auditing Institute, Ltd.: Application for Expansion of Recognition and Modification to the List of Appropriate NRTL Program Test Standards | |
| 80 FR 76049 - Curtis-Strauss LLC: Grant of Expansion of Recognition | |
| 80 FR 76044 - Canadian Standards Association: Grant of Expansion of Recognition | |
| 80 FR 76045 - TUV SUD America Inc.: Application for Expansion of Recognition | |
| 80 FR 76017 - Notice of Meeting Schedule for 2016 | |
| 80 FR 76017 - Notice of Request for Candidates | |
| 80 FR 75999 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 75956 - Dividend Equivalents From Sources Within the United States; Correction | |
| 80 FR 75946 - Dividend Equivalents From Sources Within the United States; Correction | |
| 80 FR 75947 - West Arm Behm Canal, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Ketchikan, Alaska; Restricted Areas | |
| 80 FR 76057 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Iraqi Citizens and Nationals Employed by Federal Contractors and Grantees | |
| 80 FR 76057 - Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 76051 - OMB Approval of Information Collections; Duties of Plan Sponsor Following Mass Withdrawal, Notice of Insolvency; Termination of Multiemployer Plans | |
| 80 FR 76022 - Moving Forward: Collaborative Approaches to Medical Device Cybersecurity; Public Workshop; Request for Comments | |
| 80 FR 76051 - OMB Approval of Information Collections; Reportable Events; Notice of Failure To Make Required Contributions | |
| 80 FR 75975 - Schedules for Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops | |
| 80 FR 76066 - CSX Transportation, Inc.-Abandonment Exemption-in Grant County, W. Va. | |
| 80 FR 76000 - Gulf Regional Airspace Strategic Initiative, Landscape Initiative Eglin Air Force Base, Florida | |
| 80 FR 76000 - Notice To Extend Public Comment Period for the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Divert Activities and Exercises, Commonwealth of The Northern Mariana Islands | |
| 80 FR 75999 - Request for Public Comment on a Commercial Availability Request Under the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement | |
| 80 FR 76043 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-American Society of Mechanical Engineers | |
| 80 FR 75953 - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel; Consideration of Negotiated Rulemaking Process | |
| 80 FR 76043 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-ODVA, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 76020 - Notice of Termination; 10489, The Community's Bank Bridgeport, Connecticut | |
| 80 FR 75997 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Fisheries Research | |
| 80 FR 76043 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Federal Firearms Licensee Firearms Inventory Theft/Loss Report | |
| 80 FR 75966 - Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness Charter Renewal | |
| 80 FR 75998 - Request for Public Comment on a Commercial Availability Request Under the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement | |
| 80 FR 76042 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-National Spectrum Consortium | |
| 80 FR 76026 - Prospective Grant of Start-Up Exclusive Evaluation Option License Agreement: Development and Commercialization of Aza-Epoxy Guaiane Derivatives for Treatment of Renal Cancer | |
| 80 FR 76027 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 76027 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 76025 - Meeting of the Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health | |
| 80 FR 76010 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 80 FR 76055 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 75978 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Bravo Wharf Recapitalization Project | |
| 80 FR 76020 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10294, North County Bank, Arlington, Washington | |
| 80 FR 76001 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 76021 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 76010 - Holtwood, LLC and BIF III Holtwood LLC; Notice of Application for Transfer of Licenses and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 80 FR 76007 - High Island Offshore System, L.L.C.; Notice of Application | |
| 80 FR 76005 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 80 FR 76003 - Delfin LNG LLC; Notice of Amendment to Application | |
| 80 FR 76014 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 80 FR 76038 - Certain Wireless Headsets; Commission Determination To Review an Initial Determination Granting Respondents' Motion for Summary Determination of Patent Invalidity Due to Indefiniteness | |
| 80 FR 76040 - Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Including Downscan and Sidescan Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof; Commission's Final Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and a Cease and Desist Order; Termination of the Investigation | |
| 80 FR 76040 - Certain Wearable Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation | |
| 80 FR 76058 - Office of Commercial Space Transportation; Notice of Availability and Request for Comment on the Second Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Kodiak Launch Complex Launch Pad 3, Kodiak Island, Alaska | |
| 80 FR 75926 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 80 FR 76051 - Humanities Panel Advisory Committee; Charter Renewal | |
| 80 FR 76050 - Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities; Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 76018 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 80 FR 76019 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 80 FR 75928 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 80 FR 75924 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 80 FR 75923 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 80 FR 76053 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Update Rule Cross-References and Make Non-Substantive Technical Changes to Certain FINRA Rules | |
| 80 FR 76052 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Market Order Spread Protection | |
| 80 FR 76026 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 76026 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 75959 - Solicitation of Veterinary Shortage Situation Nominations for the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program (VMLRP) | |
| 80 FR 75952 - Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan Engines | |
| 80 FR 76001 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Student Assistance General Provisions-Financial Assistance for Students With Intellectual Disabilities | |
| 80 FR 76012 - Millennium Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Application | |
| 80 FR 76007 - Collection of Connected Entity Data From Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators | |
| 80 FR 76005 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 80 FR 76013 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 80 FR 76002 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 80 FR 76008 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice | |
| 80 FR 76009 - Notice of Competing Preliminary Permit Applications Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
| 80 FR 76013 - Pacificorp; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 80 FR 76004 - Notice of Staff Attendance | |
| 80 FR 76007 - Notice of Staff Attendance at the Illinois Commerce Commission's “Solutions to Resource Adequacy in MISO Zone 4” Policy Session | |
| 80 FR 76004 - Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status | |
| 80 FR 76030 - Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Approval; Control and Management of Resident Canada Geese | |
| 80 FR 75955 - Petition Requesting Rulemaking on Products Containing Organohalogen Flame Retardants; Notice of Opportunity for Oral Presentation of Comments | |
| 80 FR 75977 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Recreational Landings and Bluefin Tuna Catch Reports | |
| 80 FR 76067 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for 7 Foreign Species of Elasmobranchs Under the Endangered Species Act | |
| 80 FR 76058 - Notice of Extension of Comment Period for Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Proposed Part 139 Operating Certificate and Related Actions and Notice for Public Hearing at Paulding Northwest Atlanta Airport | |
| 80 FR 76021 - General Services Administration Regulation; Information Collection; Packing List Clause | |
| 80 FR 76117 - Passenger Train Exterior Side Door Safety | |
| 80 FR 76151 - National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities Risk and Technology Review | |
| 80 FR 75931 - Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards: Conforming Amendments | |
| 80 FR 76034 - Privacy Act of 1974; Establishment of a New System of Records | |
| 80 FR 76036 - Privacy Act of 1974; Establishment of a New System of Records |
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Army Department
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Antitrust Division
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
National Endowment for the Humanities
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective December 7, 2015. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Richard A. Dunham III, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part § 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective December 7, 2015. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 7, 2015.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at
Richard A. Dunham III, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420)Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment provides the affected CFRs, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective December 7, 2015. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 7, 2015.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Richard A. Dunham III, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part § 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective December 7, 2015. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at
Richard A. Dunham III, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK. 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment provides the affected CFRs, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
Office of the Secretary, HUD.
Final rule.
On December 19, 2014, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published a joint, Governmentwide interim rule with all Federal award-making agencies, entitled “Federal Awarding Agency Regulatory Implementation of Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.” In that rule, all Federal award-making agencies, including HUD, implemented the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. HUD also amended its administrative requirements for grants and cooperative agreements. This final rule conforms HUD's regulations to OMB's rule, revises cross references within affected HUD regulations, and makes other conforming changes and corrections.
Scott Moore, Financial Operations Analyst, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Financial Policy & Procedures Division, 451 7th Street SW., Room 3210, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-402-2277, or Loyd LaMois, Supervisory Program Analyst, Office of Strategic Planning and Management, 451 7th Street SW., Room 3156, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-402-3964. These are not a toll-free numbers. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access these numbers through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service, toll-free, at 800-877-8339.
On December 19, 2014 (79 FR 75867), OMB published a joint, Governmentwide interim rule of all Federal award-making agencies entitled, “Federal Awarding Agency Regulatory Implementation of Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.” In the joint interim rule, HUD and all other Federal award-making agencies implemented OMB's final guidance entitled, “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards” (Uniform Guidance) published on December 26, 2013 (78 FR 78589). The Uniform Guidance followed publication of a Notice of Proposed Guidance published on February 1, 2013 (78 FR 7282), and an Advance Notice of Proposed Guidance published on February 28, 2012 (77 FR 11778), and incorporated public comments received on those two documents. The Uniform Guidance is codified at 2 CFR part 200.
OMB's Uniform Guidance provides a Governmentwide framework for Federal grant management designed to reduce administrative burden for non-Federal entities receiving Federal awards, while reducing the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse. The Uniform Guidance establishes requirements and responsibilities for all Federal agencies that award Federal financial assistance and all non-Federal entities that receive Federal awards. In developing the Uniform Guidance, OMB consolidated existing OMB circulars into a single set of requirements. OMB circulars consolidated and superseded by the Uniform Guidance include:
• A-21, “Cost Principles for Educational Institutions”;
• A-87, “Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments”;
• A-102, “Grant Awards and Cooperative Agreements with State and Local Governments”;
• A-110, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Awards and Other Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations”; and
• A-133, “Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit Organizations”.
The policy reforms brought about by the Uniform Guidance include:
• Eliminating duplicative/conflicting guidance;
• Focusing on performance over compliance for accountability;
• Encouraging efficient use of information technology (IT)/shared services;
• Providing for consistent treatment of costs;
• Limiting allowable costs for the best use of Federal resources;
• Incorporating standard business processes using data definitions;
• Strengthening oversight; and
• Targeting audit requirements on risk of waste, fraud, and abuse.
The Uniform Guidance also streamlines audit procedures by:
• Raising the Single Audit threshold from $500,000 to $750,000;
• Raising the questioned cost limit in Single Audits from $10,000 to $25,000; and
• Requiring assessment of Governmentwide audit quality to be conducted every 6 years (beginning in 2018).
In the December 19, 2014, joint, interim rule, HUD adopted and codified the Uniform Guidance as requirements for Federal awards at a new part, 2 CFR part 2400. HUD also amended 24 CFR parts 84 and 85, which had codified OMB Circulars superseded by 2 CFR part 200, by removing all substantive provisions and including a saving provision that provides that Federal awards made prior to December 26, 2014, will continue to be governed by parts 84 or 85 as codified in the 2013 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) or as provided under the terms of the Federal award.
HUD implemented OMB Circular A-102 in 1988, by codifying its provisions in 24 CFR part 85 (March 11, 1988, 53 FR 8025, 8650). In 1994, HUD implemented OMB Circular A-110 by codifying its provisions in 24 CFR part 84 (September 13, 1994, 59 FR 47011). HUD codified the provisions of OMB Circular A-133 in 24 CFR parts 84 and 85 in 1997 (November 18, 1997, 62 FR 61617). In the intervening years since codifying the guidance in these circulars, HUD has cross-referenced applicable provisions of 24 CFR parts 84 and 85 throughout program regulations. Because HUD has implemented 2 CFR part 200 and removed, with certain exceptions, 24 CFR parts 84 and 85, this final rule conforms 24 CFR to the Uniform Guidance by removing references to 24 CFR parts 84 and 85 and replacing them with corresponding references to 2 CFR part 200.
Grant recipients and those who monitor grants are strongly encouraged to review the Uniform Guidance to obtain a better understanding of the Uniform Guidance and its implications for their Federal awards. The Federal Council on Financial Assistance Reform (COFAR) has provided additional tools to assist in the transition to the Uniform Guidance. These tools include:
• Frequently Asked Questions for New Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR part 200:
• Uniform Guidance Crosswalk from Existing Guidance to Final Guidance:
• COFAR webcast trainings and slides: Available through the COFAR Web site
Additional tools are available through links from COFAR's Web site homepage,
In addition, grant recipients are encouraged to review guidance issued by HUD on February 26, 2015, entitled “Transition to 2 CFR part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, Final Guidance” (Notice SD-2015-01). This guidance is available at
As noted above, HUD implemented OMB Circular A-133, “Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations,” in 24 CFR parts 84 and 85 in 1997. In HUD's 1997 interim rule, HUD also removed and reserved 24 CFR part 44—Non-Federal Audit Requirements for State and Local Government, and 24 CFR part 45—Non-Federal Audit Requirements for Institutions of Higher Education and Other Nonprofit Institutions, since these parts were no longer applicable because of HUD's implementation of the circular. In drafting this final rule, HUD discovered the inadvertent retention of references to 24 CFR parts 44 and 45. HUD is using this final rule to correct this oversight and is replacing outdated references to parts 44 and 45 with references to 2 CFR part 200, subpart F—Audit Requirements, or section(s) of that subpart, as applicable.
HUD is revising § 4.5 to conform to Section 233 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 111-8, March 11, 2009). HUD is revising § 570.402(a)(1) to conform to HUD's final rule entitled “Removal of Obsolete Community Planning and Development (CPD) Regulations (79 FR 51893, September 2, 2014). HUD is also correcting other copy and typographical errors.
HUD generally publishes a rule for public comment before issuing a rule for effect, in accordance with its own regulations on rulemaking at 24 CFR part 10. Part 10 provides for exceptions to the general rule if the agency finds good cause to omit advance notice and public participation. The good cause requirement is satisfied when prior public procedure is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest” (24 CFR 10.1). This rule updates references to regulatory provisions that have been removed by HUD in implementing the Uniform Guidance, and substitutes references to appropriate sections of the Uniform Guidance, corrects outdated references to 24 CFR parts 44 and 45, and makes other conforming changes. As a result, HUD finds that good cause exists to publish this rule for effect without first soliciting public comment.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) generally requires an agency to conduct regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because HUD has determined that good cause exists to issue this rule without prior public comment, this rule is not subject to the requirement to publish an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis under the RFA as part of such action.
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. This final rule will not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive order.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
Administrative practice and procedure, Government employees, Grant programs—housing and community development, Investigations, Loan programs—housing and community development, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Claims, Crime, Government contracts, Grant programs—housing and community development, Individuals with disabilities, Intergovernmental relations, Loan programs—housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Mortgage insurance, Penalties, Pets, Public housing, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security, Unemployment compensation, Wages.
Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs—housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Manufactured homes, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Fair housing, Grant programs—housing and community development, Individuals with disabilities, Intergovernmental relations, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Fair housing, Grant programs—housing and community development, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Community development, Equal employment opportunity, Government contracts, Grant programs—housing and community development, Housing Loan programs—housing and community development, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Equal employment opportunity, Fair housing, Housing standards, Lead poisoning, Loan programs—housing and community development, Mortgage insurance, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security, Unemployment compensation, Wages.
Administrative practice and procedure, Home improvement, Manufactured homes, Mortgage insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Loan programs—housing and community development, Organization and functions (government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Mortgage insurance, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Hospitals, Mortgage insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Intergovernmental relations, Loan programs—housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Mortgage insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Intergovernmental relations, Low and moderate income housing, Mortgage insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Loan programs—housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Mortgage insurance, Mortgages, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Community development block grants, Grant programs—education, Grant programs—housing and community development, Guam, Indians, Loan programs—housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Northern Mariana Islands, Pacific Island Trust Territory, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid, Virgin Islands.
Arson, Community facilities, Loan programs—housing and community development, Nonprofit organizations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Community facilities, Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant programs—social programs, HIV/AIDS, Low and moderate income housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Community facilities, Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant programs—social programs, Homeless, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Community facilities, Continuum of Care, Emergency solutions grants, Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant programs—social programs, Homeless, Rural housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Supportive housing programs— housing and community development, Supportive services.
Civil rights, Community facilities, Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant programs—social programs, Homeless, Individuals with disabilities, Mental health programs, Nonprofit organizations, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Civil rights, Community facilities, Employment, Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant programs—social programs, Homeless, Indians, Individuals with disabilities, Mental health programs, Nonprofit organizations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Technical assistance.
Aged, Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant programs—Indians, Indians, Individuals with disabilities, Low and moderate income housing, Public housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Drug traffic control, Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant programs—Indians, Indians, Public housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Homeless, Lead poisoning, Manufactured homes, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Lead poisoning, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Aged, Grant programs—housing and community development, Individuals with disabilities, Loan programs—housing and community development, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Public housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Public housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Public housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Public housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Public housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Government procurement, Grant programs—housing and community development, Lead poisoning, Loan programs—housing and community development, Public housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Utilities.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Public housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant programs—Indians, Indians, Public housing, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accounting, Grant programs—housing and community development, Public housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Aged, Community development block grants, Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant programs—Indians, Indians, Individuals with disabilities, Public housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Alaska, Community development block grants, Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant programs—Indians, Indians, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Community development block grants, Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant programs—Indians, Hawaiian Natives, Low and moderate income housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons described in the preamble, HUD amends title 24 CFR parts 4, 5, 92, 115, 125, 135, 200, 202, 214, 236, 242, 248, 266, 401, 570, 573, 574, 576, 578, 582, 583, 700, 761, 880, 881, 882, 883, 884, 886, 891, 902, 905, 943, 963, 964, 965, 970, 982, 990, 1000, 1003, and 1006, as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 3537a, 3545.
(a)
42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437d, 1437f, 1437n, 3535(d), Sec. 327, Pub. L. 109-115, 119 Stat. 2936, and Sec. 607, Pub. L. 109-162, 119 Stat. 3051.
The revision reads as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 12701-12839
(c) * * *
(2) HOME funds drawn from the United States Treasury account must be expended for eligible costs within 15 days. Any interest earned within the 15-day period may be retained by the participating jurisdiction as HOME funds. Any funds that are drawn down and not expended for eligible costs within 15 days of the disbursement must be returned to HUD for deposit in the participating jurisdiction's United States Treasury account of the HOME Investment Trust Fund. Interest earned after 15 days belongs to the United States and must be remitted to the United States as provided in 2 CFR 200.305(b)(9), except interest amounts up to $500 per year may be retained for administrative expenses.
The requirements of 2 CFR part 200 apply to participating jurisdictions, State recipients, and subrecipients receiving HOME funds, except for the following provisions: §§ 200.306, 200.307, 200.308 (not applicable to participating jurisdictions), 200.311 (except as provided in § 92.257), 200.312, 200.329, 200.333, and 200.334. The provisions of 2 CFR 200.305 apply as modified by § 92.502(c). If there is a conflict between definitions in 2 CFR part 200 and 24 CFR part 92, the definitions in 24 CFR part 92 govern.
HOME funds will be closed out in accordance with 2 CFR part 200, subpart D.
42 U.S.C. 3601-19; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
(e) All files will be kept in such fashion as to permit audits under 2 CFR part 200, subpart F.
42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 3616 note.
12 U.S.C. 1701u; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
12 U.S.C. 1702-1715z-21; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
Requirements set forth in 2 CFR part 200, subpart F, apply to State and local governments (as defined at 2 CFR 200.90 and 200.64, respectively) that receive mortgage insurance as mortgagees.
12 U.S.C. 1703, 1709, and 1715b; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
(c)
12 U.S.C. 1701x, 1701x-1; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
12 U.S.C. 1715b, 1715z-1, and 1735d; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
12 U.S.C. 1709, 1710, 1715b, 1715n(f), and 1715u; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
12 U.S.C. 17151 note, 4101 note, and 4101-4124; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
12 U.S.C. 1707; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
12 U.S.C. 1715z-1 and 1735f-18(b); 42 U.S.C. 1437(c)(8), 1437f(t) note, and 3535(d).
42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 5301-5320.
The additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) Costs of housing (
(iv) Organization costs (2 CFR 200.455); and
(j) * * *
(2)
The revision and additions to read as follows:
(m)
(n)
(p)
(1) Depreciation methods for fixed assets shall not be changed without the express approval of the cognizant Federal agency (2 CFR 200.436).
(2) Fines, penalties, damages, and other settlements are unallowable costs to the CDBG program (2 CFR 200.441).
(3) Costs of housing (
(4) Organization costs (2 CFR 200.455).
(a) Grantees and subrecipients shall comply with 2 CFR part 200, “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards”, except that:
(1) Section 200.305 “Payment” is modified for lump sum drawdown for financing of property rehabilitation activities, in accordance with § 570.513.
(2) Section 200.306 “Cost sharing or matching” does not apply.
(3) Section 200.307 “Program income” does not apply. Program income is governed by § 570.504.
(4) Section 200.308 “Revisions of budget and program plans” does not apply.
(5) Section 200.311 “Real property” does not apply, except as provided in § 570.200(j). Real property is governed by § 570.505.
(6) Section 200.313 “Equipment” applies, except that when the equipment is sold, the proceeds shall be program income. Equipment not needed by the subrecipient for CDBG activities shall be transferred to the recipient for the CDBG program or shall be retained after compensating the recipient.
(7) Section 200.333 “Retention requirements for records” applies except that:
(i) For recipients:
(A) The period shall be 4 years from the date of execution of the closeout agreement for a grant, as further described in this part;
(B) Records for individual activities subject to the reversion of assets provisions at § 570.503(b)(7) or the change of use provisions at § 570.505 must be maintained for 3 years after those provisions no longer apply to the activity;
(C) Records for individual activities for which there are outstanding loan balances, other receivables, or contingent liabilities must be retained for 3 years after the receivables or liabilities have been satisfied.
(ii) For subrecipients:
(A) The retention period for individual CDBG activities shall be the longer of 3 years after the expiration or termination of the subrecipient agreement under § 570.503, or 3 years after the submission of the annual performance and evaluation report, as prescribed in § 91.520 of this title, in which the specific activity is reported on for the final time;
(B) Records for individual activities subject to the reversion of assets provisions at § 570.503(b)(7) or change of use provisions at § 570.505 must be maintained for as long as those provisions continue to apply to the activity; and
(C) Records for individual activities for which there are outstanding loan balances, other receivables, or contingent liabilities must be retained until such receivables or liabilities have been satisfied.
(8) Section 200.343 “Closeout” applies to closeout of subrecipients.
(b) [Reserved]
The revision reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(6)
The recipient, its agencies or instrumentalities, and subrecipients shall comply with 2 CFR part 200, “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards”, as set forth at § 570.502.
Pub. L. 104-155, 110 Stat. 1392, 18 U.S.C. 241 note; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 12901-12912.
The provisions of 2 CFR part 200, “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards”, apply to HOPWA grants.
Grantees and project sponsors are subject to the audit requirements set forth in 2 CFR part 200, subpart F.
42 U.S.C. 11371
(a) The recipient must make matching contributions to supplement the recipient's ESG program in an amount that equals the recipient's fiscal year grant for ESG. This amount may include contributions to any project under the recipient's ESG program, including any subrecipient's ESG project, if the requirements in this section are met. The first $100,000 of a State's fiscal year grant is not required to be matched, but the benefit of this exception must pass to the state's subrecipients that are least capable of providing matching contributions. The match requirements under this section do not apply if the recipient is a territory.
(b) To be recognized as match for ESG, each contribution must meet the requirements under 2 CFR 200.306, except that:
(1) Notwithstanding 2 CFR 200.306(b)(4), matching contributions are not subject to the expenditure limits in § 576.100; and
(2) Notwithstanding 2 CFR 200.306(b)(5), the recipient may use funds from another Federal program as match for ESG, unless doing so would violate a specific statutory prohibition or the recipient or subrecipient counts ESG funds as match for that program.
(c) The recipient may count as match the value specified in 2 CFR 200.306(d) for any building the recipient or subrecipient donates for long-term use in the recipient's ESG program, provided that depreciation on the building is not counted as match or charged to any Federal award. If a third party donates a building to the recipient or subrecipient, the recipient may count as match either depreciation of the building and fair rental charges for the land for each year the building is used for the recipient's ESG program or, if the building is donated for long-term use in the recipient's ESG program, the fair market value of the capital assets, as specified in 2 CFR 200.306(h)(2), (i), and (j). To qualify as a donation for long-term use, the donation must be evidenced by a recorded deed or use restriction that is effective for at least 10 years after the donation date. If the donated building is renovated with ESG funds, the minimum period of use under § 576.102(c) may increase the period for which the building must be used in the recipient's ESG program.
(a) * * * Recipients and subrecipients must also maintain written standards of conduct covering organizational conflicts of interest required under 2 CFR 200.318.
(b)
(c)
(1) Program income may be used as matching contributions, subject to the requirements in § 576.201;
(2) The disposition of real property for which ESG funds are used for major rehabilitation, conversion, or other renovation under § 576.102 is governed by the minimum period of use requirements under § 576.102(c).
The revision reads as follows:
(z) * * *
(1)
42 U.S.C. 11371
The revision reads as follows:
(b)
(e)
(g)
42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 11403-11407b.
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
42 U.S.C. 11389 and 3535(d).
The revision reads as follows:
(c)
42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 8011.
The revision reads as follows:
(a)
42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 11901
42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), 12701, and 13611-13619.
Where a non-Federal entity (as defined in 2 CFR 200.69) is the eligible owner of a project or a contract administrator under § 880.505 receiving financial assistance under this part, the audit requirements in 2 CFR part 200, subpart F, shall apply.
42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), 12701, and 13611-13619.
(a) Where a non-Federal entity (as defined in 2 CFR 200.69) is the eligible owner of a project or a contract administrator under § 881.505 receiving financial assistance under this part, the audit requirements in 2 CFR part 200, subpart F, shall apply.
42 U.S.C. 1437f and 3535(d).
42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), and 13611-13619.
Where housing assistance under the Section 8 Program is provided for projects developed or owned by non-Federal entities (as defined in 2 CFR 200.69), the audit requirements in 2 CFR part 200, subpart F, shall apply.
42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), and 13611-13619.
Where a non-Federal entity (as defined in 2 CFR 200.69) is the eligible owner of a project, or is a contract administrator under § 884.119 or § 884.120, receiving financial assistance under this part, the audit requirements in 2 CFR part 200, subpart F, shall apply.
42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), and 13611-13619.
Where a non-Federal entity (as defined in 2 CFR 200.69) is the eligible owner of a project, or is a contract administrator under § 886.120, receiving financial assistance under this part, the audit requirements in 2 CFR part 200, subpart F, shall apply.
Where a non-Federal entity (as defined in 2 CFR 200.69) is the eligible owner of a project receiving financial assistance under this part, the audit requirements in 2 CFR part 200, subpart F, shall apply.
12 U.S.C. 1701q; 42 U.S.C. 1437f, 3535(d), and 8013.
42 U.S.C. 1437d(j), 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
42 U.S.C. 1437g, 42 U.S.C. 1437z-2, 42 U.S.C. 1437z-7, and 3535(d).
42 U.S.C. 1437k and 3535(d).
42 U.S.C. 1437 and 3535(d).
42 U.S.C. 1437d, 1437g, 1437r, 3535(d).
42 U.S.C. 1437, 1437a, 1437d, 1437g, and 3535(d). Subpart H is also issued under 42 U.S.C. 4821-4846.
42 U.S.C. 1437p and 3535(d).
42 U.S.C. 1437f and 3535(d).
42 U.S.C. 1437g; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
25 U.S.C. 4101
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) Except as addressed in § 1000.28, recipients shall comply with the requirements and standards of 2 CFR part 200, “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, And Audit Requirements for Federal Awards”, except for the following sections:
(1) Section 200.113 applies, except that, in lieu of the remedies described in § 200.338, HUD shall be authorized to seek remedies under subpart F of this part.
(2) Section 200.302(a), “Financial management.”
(3) Section 200.305, “Payment,” applies, except that HUD shall not require a recipient to expend retained program income before drawing down or expending IHBG funds.
(4) Section 200.306, “Cost sharing or matching.”
(5) Section 200.307, “Program income.”
(6) Section 200.308, “Revision of budget and program plans.”
(7) Section 200.311, “Real property,” except as provided in 24 CFR 5.109.
(8) Section 200.313, “Equipment,” applies, except that in all cases in which the equipment is sold, the proceeds shall be program income.
(9) Section 200.314, “Supplies,” applies, except in all cases in which the supplies are sold, the proceeds shall be program income.
(10) Section 200.317, “Procurement by states.”
(11) Sections 200.318 through 200.326 apply, as modified in this paragraph (a)(11):
(i)
(ii)
(12) Section 200.325, “Bonding requirements,” applies. There may be circumstances under which the bonding requirements of 2 CFR 200.325 are inconsistent with other responsibilities and obligations of the recipient. In such circumstances, acceptable methods to provide performance and payment assurance may include:
(i) Deposit with the recipient of a cash escrow of not less than 20 percent of the total contract price, subject to reduction during the warranty period, commensurate with potential risk;
(ii) Letter of credit for 25 percent of the total contract price, unconditionally payable upon demand of the recipient, subject to reduction during any warranty period commensurate with potential risk; or
(iii) Letter of credit for 10 percent of the total contract price, unconditionally payable upon demand of the recipient, subject to reduction during any warranty period commensurate with potential risk, and compliance with the procedures for monitoring of disbursements by the contractor.
(13) Section 200.328(b) through (d) and (f), “Monitoring and reporting program performance.”
(14) Section 200.333, “Retention requirements for records.”
(15) Section 200.338, “Remedies for noncompliance.”
(16) Section 200.343, “Closeout.”
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Depreciation method for fixed assets shall not be changed without the approval of the Federal cognizant agency.
(ii) Penalties, damages, fines and other settlements are unallowable costs to the IHBG program.
(iii) Costs of housing (
No. A copy of the recipient audit under the Single Audit Act relating to NAHASDA activities is only required to be submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse pursuant to 2 CFR part 200, subpart F.
42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 5301
The revision and additions read as follows:
(a) Grantees and subrecipients shall comply with the requirements and standards of 2 CFR part 200, except for the following sections:
(1) Paragraph (a) of § 200.302, “Financial management.”
(2) Section 200.306, “Cost sharing or matching.”
(3) Section 200.307, “Program income” applies as modified by § 1003.503.
(4) Section 200.308, “Revisions of budget and program plans.”
(5) Section 200.311, “Real property,” except as provided in § 1003.600.
(6) Section 200.313, “Equipment” applies, except that in all cases in which the equipment is sold, the proceeds shall be program income.
(7) Section 200.314, “Supplies,” applies, except in all cases in which the supplies are sold, the proceeds shall be program income.
(8) Section 200.325, “Bonding requirements” applies. However, there may be circumstances under which the bonding requirements of 2 CFR 200.325 are inconsistent with other responsibilities and obligations of the grantee. In such circumstances, acceptable methods to provide performance and payment assurance may include:
(i) Deposit with the grantee of a cash escrow of not less than 20 percent of the total contract price, subject to reduction during the warranty period, commensurate with potential risk; or
(ii) Letter of credit for 25 percent of the total contract price, unconditionally payable upon demand of the grantee, subject to reduction during the warranty period commensurate with potential risk.
(9) Paragraphs (b) through (d) and (f) of § 200.328, “Monitoring and reporting program performance.”
(10) Section 200.333, “Retention requirements for records” applies. However, the retention period referenced in 2 CFR 200.333 pertaining to individual ICDBG activities starts from the date of the submission of the final status and evaluation report as prescribed in § 1003.506(a) in which the specific activity is reported.
(11) Section 200.343, “Closeout.”
(b)
(iii) Costs of housing (
(iv) Organization costs (2 CFR 200.455) require HUD prior approval.
The revision reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(7)
25 U.S.C. 4221
(a) The DHHL and subrecipients receiving NHHBG funds shall comply with the requirements and standards of 2 CFR part 200, “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards”.
(b)(1) With respect to the applicability of cost principles, all items of cost listed in 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, which require prior Federal agency approval are allowable without the prior approval of HUD to the extent that they comply with the general policies and principles stated in 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, and are otherwise eligible under this part, except for the following:
(i) Depreciation methods for fixed assets shall not be changed without the approval of the Federal cognizant agency.
(ii) Fines, penalties, damages, and other settlements are unallowable costs to the NHHBG program.
(iii) Costs of housing (
(iv) Organization costs (2 CFR 200.455).
(2) In addition, no person providing consultant services in an employer-employee type of relationship shall receive funds. In no event, however, shall such compensation exceed the equivalent of the daily rate paid for Level IV of the Executive Schedule. The Executive Pay Schedule may be obtained by
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final and temporary regulations; correcting amendment.
This document contains corrections to final and temporary regulations (TD 9734) that was published in the
This correction is effective on
Peter Merkel or Karen Walny at (202) 317-6938 (not a toll free number).
The final and temporary regulations (TD 9734) that are the subject of this correction are under sections 871 and 894 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, the final and temporary regulations (TD 9734) contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(i) * * *
(4) * * *
* * *
(ii) Subject to paragraph (i)(2)(iv) of this section, the estimated dividend amounts are the per-share dividend amounts because the estimates are reasonable and specified in accordance with paragraph (i)(2)(iii) of this section. The estimated per-share dividend amounts are dividend equivalents for purposes of this section.
* * *
(ii) Because the LIBOR leg of the swap contract is reduced to reflect estimated dividends and the estimated dividend amounts are not specified, Foreign Investor is treated as receiving the actual dividend amounts are in accordance with paragraph (i)(2) of this section. The actual per-share dividend amounts are dividend equivalents for purposes of this section.
(r) * * * (1)
(3)
(4)
(h) * * *
(7) * * *
* * *
(viii) FI concludes that the Contract is not a section 871(m) transaction because the complex contract calculation of 7.68 exceeds the benchmark calculation of 4.473.
(e) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(F) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.1441-1T(e)(3)(ii)(F).
(f) * * *
(3) * * * Paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(E) and (e)(6) of this section apply beginning September 18, 2015.
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) * * * Paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(M) and (c)(2)(ii)(J) of this section apply beginning September 18, 2015.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final and temporary regulations; correction.
This document contains corrections to final and temporary regulations (TD 9734) that was published in the
This correction is effective on
Peter Merkel or Karen Walny at (202) 317-6938 (not a toll free number).
The final and temporary regulations (TD 9734) that are the subject of this correction are under sections 871 and 894 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, the final and temporary regulations (TD 9734) contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.
Accordingly, the final and temporary regulations (TD 9734), that are the subject of FR Doc. 2015-21759, are corrected as follows:
1. On page 56866, in the preamble, the first column, under the caption “DATES”, the fourth through seventh lines of the paragraph, the language “applicability, see §§ 1.871-14(j)(3), 1.871-15(r), 1.871-15T(r)(4), 1.1441-1(f)(4), 1.1441-1T(f)(3), 1.1441-2(f), 1.1441-3(h)(3), 1.1441-7(a)(4), and ” is corrected to read “applicability, see §§ 1.871-14(j)(3), 1.871-15(r), 1.871-15T(r)(4), 1.1441-1(f)(4), 1.1441-1T(f)(3), 1.1441-2(f), 1.1441-3(h)(3), 1.1441-7(a)(4), 1.1461-1(c)(2)(iii), and”.
2. On page 56866, in the preamble, the first column, the eleventh line from the bottom of the column, the language “871(m). This information will be used” is corrected to read “871(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. This information will be used”.
3. On page 56868, in the preamble, the first column, the ninth line from the bottom of the column, the language “discussed in section E.1 of this” is corrected to read “discussed in section F.1 of this”.
4. On page 56869, in the preamble, the second column, the tenth line of the first full paragraph, the language “dividends. As noted in Part II.L. of this” is corrected to read “dividends. As noted in Part II.M. of this”.
5. On page 56870, in the preamble, the first column, the thirty-second line from the bottom of the column, the language “D. Payment of a Dividend Equivalent” is corrected to read “E. Payment of a Dividend Equivalent”.
6. On page 56870, in the preamble, the second column, the twenty-second line of the second full paragraph, the language “equivalent, as discussed in Part II.M of” is corrected to read “equivalent, as discussed in Part II.N of”.
7. On page 56870, in the preamble, the second column, the eighteenth line from the bottom of the column, the language “E. Amount of a Dividend Equivalent” is corrected to read “F. Amount of a Dividend Equivalent”.
8. On page 56870, in the preamble, the third column, the eleventh line from the bottom of the column, the language “defined in § 1.871-15(a)(14)(ii)” is corrected to read “defined in § 1.871-15(a)(5)”.
9. On page 56871, in the preamble, the first column, the twenty-sixth line from the bottom of the column, the language “F. Qualified Indices” is corrected to read “G. Qualified Indices”.
10. On page 56872, in the preamble, the first column, the last line of the first full paragraph, the language “qualified index rule.
11. On page 56872, in the preamble, the second column, the sixth line from the bottom of the column, the language “G. Combined Transactions” is corrected to read “H. Combined Transactions”.
12. On page 56873, in the preamble, the third column, the twelfth line from the top of the column, the language “H. Derivatives Referenced to Partnership” is corrected to read “I. Derivatives Referenced to Partnership”.
13. On page 56873, in the preamble, the third column, the fifth line from the bottom of the column, the language “I. Anti-Abuse Rule” is corrected to read “J. Anti-Abuse Rule”.
14. On page 56874, in the preamble, the first column, the twenty-fourth line from the top of the column, the language “J. Reporting Obligations” is corrected to read “K. Reporting Obligations”.
15. On page 56874, in the preamble, the first column, the fifteenth line of the second full paragraph, the language “871(m) transaction the broker or dealer” is corrected to read “871(m) transaction, the broker or dealer”.
16. On page 56874, in the preamble, the third column, the first line of column, the language “K. Recordkeeping Rules” is corrected to read “L. Recordkeeping Rules”.
17. On page 56874, in the preamble, the third column, the thirty-second line from the top of column, the language “L. Contingent and Convertible Debt” is corrected to read “M. Contingent and Convertible Debt”.
18. On page 56875, in the preamble, the second column, the third line from the top of the column, the language “M. Amounts Subject to Withholding” is corrected to read “N. Amounts Subject to Withholding”.
19. On page 56877, in the preamble, the second column, the fifth line from the bottom of the third full paragraph, the language “on the same underlying securities.” is corrected to read “on the same underlying security.”.
20. On page 56878, in the preamble, the second column, under the paragraph heading “IV. Effective/Applicability Date”, the third sentence of the first full paragraph is removed.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Final rule.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is amending existing regulations for an existing restricted area near Ketchikan, Alaska to correct inaccuracies in regards to flashing beacon light descriptions, point of contact changes, and restrictive area distances for small craft.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Attn: CECW-CO (David B. Olson), 441 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20314-1000.
Mr. David Olson, Headquarters, Operations and Regulatory Community of Practice, Washington, DC at 202-761-4922 or Ms. Linda Speerstra, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, Regulatory Division, at 907-747-0658.
Pursuant to its authorities in Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40
The proposed rule was published in the
a.
b.
c.
d.
Danger zones, Navigation (water), Restricted areas, Waterways.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Corps amends 33 CFR part 334 as follows:
40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1) and 40 Stat. 892 (33 U.S.C. 3).
(b) * * *
(5)
(ii) When Area No. 5 restrictions are in place, vessels may operate within 1000 yards of the shoreline at speeds no greater than 5 knots in accordance with the restriction in effect in Area No. 3.
(c) Vessels will be allowed to transit Area No. 5 within 20 minutes of marine radio or telephone notification to the Navy Facility Control Officer.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) amends the EPA Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR) to address minor non-substantive changes in one subpart and one definition. The direct final rule updates “Ratification of Unauthorized Commitments” and revises the definition of Chief of the Contracting Office (CCO). EPA does not anticipate any adverse comments.
This rule is effective on February 5, 2016 without further notice, unless adverse comment is received January 6, 2016. If adverse comment is received, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2015-0244 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Rodney Neely, Policy, Training, and Oversight Division, Acquisition Policy and Training Service Center (3802R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-2330; email address:
1. Do not submit Classified Business Information (CBI) to EPA Web site
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions—The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
3. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
The EPA is revising EPAAR subpart 1501.602-3 Ratification of Unauthorized Commitments to the approval authorities and levels to be consistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). The Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) is responsible for ratification approvals for $25,000 and above. The CCO is the approval authority for ratifications below $25,000. The procedures of this subpart are clarified, along with minor editorial changes. 1502.100 Definitions is revised to update the definition of CCO.
This final rule makes the following changes:
1. Revise EPAAR subpart 1501.602-3 to update approval authorities and levels, remove procedures, and execute minor editorial changes.
2. Revise EPAAR 1502.100 to modify the definition of Chief of the Contracting Office.
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the E.O. 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute; unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impact of
This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from State and local officials.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12886, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that may have a proportionate effect on children. This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by E.O. 12866, and because it does not have a proportionate effect on children.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28335 May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment in the general public.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Government procurement.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, Chapter 15 of Title 48 Code
5 U.S.C. 301; Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c); and 41 U.S.C. 418b.
(b)(1)
(2) The Chief of the Contracting Office (CCO) as defined in 1502.100 is delegated authority to be the ratifying official for all ratification actions below $25,000.
(3) The CCOs defined in 1502.100 for purposes of ratification authority only must meet the following criteria:
(i) Must possess a contracting officer's warrant and be in the 1102 job series;
(ii) Are prohibited from re-delegating their ratification authority;
(iii) Are prohibited from approving a ratification if he/she acted as a contracting officer in preparing the determination and findings required under paragraph (c)(3) of this section; and
(iv) Must abide by the other limitations on ratification of unauthorized commitments set forth in FAR 1.602-3(c) and the EPAAR.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80C2 and CF6-80E1 turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of a burn-through of the accessory heat shield during an accessory compartment fire leading to an engine fire. This proposed AD would require replacing the accessory heat shield assembly. We are proposing this AD to prevent high-temperature gas ingestion into the accessory compartment, engine fire, and damage to the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 5, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 513-552-3272; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Herman Mak, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7147; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received reports of a burn-through of the accessory heat shield during an engine fire leading to an accessory compartment fire. A fire burns through the accessory heat shield and ignites the integrated drive generator (IDG), which supports further combustion. The existing accessory heat shield assembly leaves a large area above the sensitive accessories, such as the IDG and the main fuel pump, without adequate protection. A total of five events have occurred. This condition, if not corrected, could result in high-temperature gas ingestion into the accessory compartment, which could lead to engine fire and damage to the airplane.
We reviewed GE Service Bulletin (SB) No. CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1520, dated September 22, 2015 and GE SB No. CF6-80E1 S/B 72-0525, dated September 22, 2015. These SBs describe the procedures for removing and replacing the accessory heat shield assembly. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or see
We reviewed GE SB No. CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1523, dated September 22, 2015. The SB describes procedures for removing and replacing the accessory heat shield assembly.
We are proposing this NPRM because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This NPRM would require replacing the accessory heat shield assembly.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 935 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5 hours per engine to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Parts would cost about $1,832 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of this
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by February 5, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to all General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80C2 and CF6-80E1 turbofan engines.
This AD was prompted by reports of a burn-through of the accessory heat shield during an accessory compartment fire leading to an engine fire. We are issuing this AD to prevent high-temperature gas ingestion into the accessory compartment, engine fire, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For CF6-80C2 engines, at the next engine shop visit after the effective date of this AD, remove from service the accessory heat shield assembly. Use Table 1 of GE Service Bulletin (SB) No. CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1520, dated September 22, 2015 to identify the part numbers (P/Ns) that require removal from service. Install an accessory heat shield assembly eligible for installation.
(2) For CF6-80E1 engines, at the next engine shop visit after the effective date of this AD, remove from service the accessory heat shield assembly. Use Table 1 of GE SB No. CF6-80E1 S/B 72-0525, dated September 22, 2015 to identify the P/Ns that require removal from service. Install an accessory heat shield assembly eligible for installation.
After the effective date of this AD, do not install any accessory heat shield assembly with a P/N listed in Table 1 of GE SB No. CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1520, dated September 22, 2015 or Table 1 of GE SB No. CF6-80E1 S/B 72-0525, dated September 22, 2015, into any engine.
For the purpose of this AD, an engine shop visit is defined as the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges, except that the separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of transportation without subsequent engine maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs to this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to:
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Herman Mak, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7147; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) GE SB No. CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1520, dated September 22, 2015; GE SB No. CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1523, dated September 22, 2015; and GE SB No. CF6-80E1 S/B 72-0525, dated September 22, 2015 can be obtained from GE using the contact information in paragraph (i)(3) of this proposed AD.
(3) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 513-552-3272; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.
Notice of intent.
The Department of Transportation (“Department” or “DOT”) announces that it is exploring the feasibility of conducting a negotiated rulemaking (Reg Neg) concerning accommodations for air travelers with disabilities addressing inflight entertainment, supplemental medical oxygen, service animals, accessible lavatories on single-aisle
Please submit your comments no later than January 6, 2016.
You may submit comments identified by docket number DOT-OST-2015-0246 using any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
If you have questions about the regulatory negotiation, you may contact Kathleen Blank Riether, Senior Attorney, Office of the Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, by email at
Congress enacted the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) in 1986. It prohibited discrimination in airline service on the basis of disability by U.S. air carriers. In 1990, following a lengthy rulemaking process that included a regulatory negotiation involving representatives of the airline industry and disability community, the Department issued a final ACAA rule. In 2000, Congress amended the ACAA to specifically include foreign air carriers. The ACAA now prohibits U.S. and foreign air carriers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of disability in air travel. In 2008, the Department revised its disability regulation to, among other things, apply its rule to foreign carriers and add new protections for passengers who use portable oxygen concentrators and passengers who are deaf or hard of hearing. See 73 FR 27614 (May 13, 2008), effective May 13, 2009.
In the preamble to the 2008 final rule, the Department explained that it had deferred final decisions regarding a number of proposed requirements and expressed its intent to issue a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) seeking additional public input on carrier-supplied in-flight medical oxygen, transport of service animals, in-flight entertainment, and accessible kiosks and Web sites. The Department also announced its intent to carefully monitor ongoing developments with respect to lavatory accessibility on single aisle aircraft during longer flights to determine if a future rulemaking proposal may be warranted. See 73 FR 27614 (May 13, 2008). In September 2011, the Department issued an SNPRM on airline Web sites and automated airport kiosks. See 76 FR 59307 (September 26, 2011). The proceeding culminated in a final rule mandating that airline Web sites and automated airport kiosks be accessible by specific dates. See 78 FR 67882 (November 12, 2013). The Department is now planning to address in-flight medical oxygen, transport of service animals and in-flight entertainment.
Additionally, since the issuance of the 2008 final rule, the Department has become aware of other difficulties individuals with disabilities are having in accessing the air travel system. For example, airlines and disability organizations
The Department is exploring the feasibility of conducting a negotiated rulemaking on the remaining issues that it deferred final action on in its 2008 final rule as well as the issues described above that have arisen since its 2008 final rule. Specifically, the Department is exploring a Reg Neg to:
• Ensure that the same in-flight entertainment (IFE) available to all passengers is accessible to passengers with disabilities;
• Provide individuals dependent on in-flight medical oxygen greater access to air travel consistent with Federal safety and security requirements;
• Determine the appropriate definition of a service animal;
• Establish safeguards to reduce the likelihood that passengers wishing to travel with their pets will be able to falsely claim that their pets are service animals;
• Address the feasibility of accessible lavatories on new single aisle aircraft;
• Address whether premium economy is a different class of service from standard economy as airlines are required to provide seating accommodations to passengers with disabilities within the same class of service; and
• Require airlines to report annually to the Department the number of requests for disability assistance they receive and the time period within which wheelchair assistance is provided to passengers with disabilities.
In a Reg Neg, an agency invites representatives of interested parties likely to be significantly affected by a regulation to work with each other and the agency on an advisory committee to seek to reach consensus recommendations on the appropriate resolution of the issues before the committee. If a consensus is reached, the Department will issue a proposed rule consistent with that consensus for
The Department has retained a neutral convener, Mr. Richard Parker from the University of Connecticut School of Law, to undertake the initial stage in the Reg Neg process and assist the agency in making this threshold determination. Mr. Parker's credentials have been placed in docket DOT-OST-2015-0246. The neutral convener will interview representatives of affected interests, including but not limited to, disability advocacy groups, airlines, and manufacturers of aircraft cabin facilities and equipment and determine whether other interest groups should be included. The convener will examine the potential for adequate and balanced representation of the varied interests on an advisory committee convened to negotiate the regulation and/or to reach consensus on specific issues. Based on these interviews, the convener will submit a written report of findings and recommendations to the Department, and the final report will be available to the public. The convenor's report will provide a basis for the Department to decide whether to proceed with a Reg Neg, and, if so, to determine the scope of the issues the committee will address. In the alternative, the Department may also decide to forgo a Reg Neg and proceed with a traditional notice-and-comment rulemaking.
The convener's activities are subject to the confidentiality provisions of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, 5 U.S.C. 574. The Federal Government will make no claim to the convener's notes, memoranda, or recollections or to documents provided to the convener in confidence in the course of the convening process. The convener will not interpret Department policy, make decisions on items of policy, regulation, or statute, or take a stand on the merits of substantive matters under discussion.
The Department will provide any comments it receives in response to this notice to the convener and will file the comments in docket DOT-OST-2015-0246. Should the Department decide to proceed with a Reg Neg process, the Agency will follow the procedures set forth in the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 561
Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.27.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of opportunity to present oral comments remotely.
The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission” or “CPSC”) on October 26, 2015 published a notice announcing that, on December 9, 2015, there will be an opportunity for interested persons to present oral comments on a petition received for rulemaking under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (“FHSA”) regarding additive organohalogen flame retardants. The Commission also will provide for presentations to be made remotely.
The meeting for interested persons to present oral comments on the petition will begin at 10 a.m. on December 9, 2015, at 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814. Requests to make oral presentations and the written text of any oral presentations must be received by the Office of the Secretary not later than 12 noon Eastern Standard Time (EST) on December 4, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2015-0022, by any of the following methods:
Rockelle Hammond, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.
On July 1, 2015, the Commission received a petition requesting that the Commission initiate rulemaking under the FHSA to declare several categories of products containing additive organohalogen flame retardants to be “banned hazardous substances.” The petition was filed by Earthjustice and the Consumer Federation of America, which are joined by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Women's Association, Consumers Union, Green Science Policy Institute, International Association of Fire Fighters, Kids in Danger, Philip Landrigan, M.D., M.P.H., League of United Latin American Citizens, Learning Disabilities Association of America, and Worksafe.
The Commission is providing a forum for oral presentations concerning the petition regarding additive organohalogen flame retardants. See the information under the headings
The Commission is also allowing remote participation. Participants may call into a conference line to make their presentations. The conference line number is 866-623-8636 and participant code is 4816474. Remote participants, as well as those presenting in person, must provide the written text of their comments in advance (see the information under the headings
Participants should limit their presentations to approximately 10 minutes, exclusive of any periods of questioning by the Commissioners or CPSC staff. To prevent duplicative presentations, groups will be directed to designate a spokesperson. The Commission reserves the right to limit the time further for any presentation and impose restrictions to avoid excessive duplication of presentations.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document contains corrections to a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-127894-14) that was published in the
Written or electronic comments and request for a public hearing for the notice of proposed rulemaking at 80 FR 56415, September 18, 2015, are still being accepted and must be received by December 17, 2015.
Send submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-127895-14), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-127895-14), Courier's desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or sent electronically, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
D. Peter Merkel or Karen Walny, at (202) 317-6938 (not a toll-free number).
The notice of proposed rulemaking that is the subject of this document is under section 871(m) of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-127895-14) contains errors that are misleading and are in need of clarification.
Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking, that is the subject of FR Doc. 2015-21753, is corrected as follows:
1. On page 56415, in the third column, add a
This document provides guidance to nonresident alien individuals and foreign corporations that hold certain financial products providing for payments that are contingent upon or determined by reference to U.S. source dividend payments. This document also provides guidance to withholding agents that are responsible for withholding U.S. tax with respect to a dividend equivalent.
2. On page 56416, second column, the second and third lines of amendatory instruction 2, the language “by revising paragraph (c)(2)(vi) and paragraph (h) to read as follows:” is corrected to read “by revising paragraphs (c)(2)(iv), (h), and (q) to read as follows:”.
3. On page 56416, second column, the first and second lines of amendatory instruction 3, the language “by revising paragraph (e)(3)(vii) and paragraph (e)(6) to read as follows:” is corrected to read “by revising paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(E), (e)(5), and (e)(6) to read as follows:”.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “Commission”) is extending the comment period for the proposed rule “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” published on October 30, 2015. The Commission is extending the comment period in response to a stakeholder request for an extension.
Comments regarding this proposal must be received by the Commission on or before January 28, 2016. The comment period was originally scheduled to end on December 29, 2015. Please see the section below entitled
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
•
•
Christopher J. Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Counsel, at (202) 663-4665 (voice), or Kerry E. Leibig, Senior Attorney Advisor, at (202) 663-4516 (voice), or (202) 663-7026 (TTY). Requests for this notice in an alternative format should be made to the Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs at (202) 663-4191 (voice) or (202) 663-4494 (TTY).
On October 30, 2015, the EEOC published the proposed rule “The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” in the
For the Commission.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is soliciting comments on the effectiveness of OFAC's licensing procedures for the exportation of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Sudan and Iran. Pursuant to section 906(c) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (Title IX of Pub. L. 106-387, 22 U.S.C. 7201
Written comments should be received on or before January 6, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Requests for additional information about these licensing procedures should be directed to the Licensing Division, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220, telephone: (202) 622-2480 (not a toll free number). Additional information about these licensing procedures is also available at
The current procedures used by OFAC for authorizing the export of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Sudan and Iran are set forth in 31 CFR 538.523-526 and 31 CFR 560.530-533. Under the provisions of section 906(c) of the Act, OFAC must submit a biennial report to the Congress on the operation, during the preceding two-year period, of the licensing procedures required by section 906 of the Act for the export of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Sudan and Iran. This report is to include:
(1) The number and types of licenses applied for;
(2) The number and types of licenses approved;
(3) The average amount of time elapsed from the date of filing of a license application until the date of its approval;
(4) The extent to which the licensing procedures were effectively implemented; and
(5) A description of comments received from interested parties about the extent to which the licensing procedures were effective, after holding a public 30-day comment period.
This notice solicits comments from interested parties regarding the effectiveness of OFAC's licensing procedures for the export of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Sudan and Iran for the time period of October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2014. Interested parties submitting comments are asked to be as specific as possible. In the interest of accuracy and completeness, OFAC requires written comments. All comments received on or before January 6, 2016 will be considered by OFAC in developing the report to the Congress. Consideration of comments received after the end of the comment period cannot be assured.
All comments made will be a matter of public record. OFAC will not accept comments accompanied by a request that part or all of the comments be treated confidentially because of their business proprietary nature or for any other reason; OFAC will return such comments when submitted by regular mail to the person submitting the comments and will not consider them.
Copies of past biennial reports may be obtained from OFAC's Web site (
Note: On October 22, 2012, OFAC issued a new general license authorizing
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.
Notice and solicitation for nominations.
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) is soliciting nominations of veterinary service shortage situations for the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program (VMLRP) for fiscal year (FY) 2016, as authorized under the National Veterinary Medical Services Act (NVMSA), 7 U.S.C. 3151a. This notice initiates the nomination period and prescribes the procedures and criteria to be used by State, Insular Area, DC and Federal Lands to nominate veterinary shortage situations. Each year all eligible nominating entities may submit nominations, up to the maximum indicated for each entity in this notice. NIFA is conducting this solicitation of veterinary shortage situation nominations under a previously approved information collection (OMB Control Number 0524-0046).
Shortage situation nominations, both new and carry over, must be submitted on or before February 10, 2016.
Submissions must be made by clicking the submit button on the Veterinarian Shortage Situation nomination form provided in the VMLRP Shortage Situations section at
This form is sent as a data file directly to the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program; National Institute of Food and Agriculture; U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Danielle Tack; Program Coordinator, Veterinary Science; National Institute of Food and Agriculture; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2220; 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-2220; Voice: 202-401-6802; Fax: 202-401-6156; Email:
A series of three peer-reviewed studies published in 2007 in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA), and sponsored by the Food Supply Veterinary Medicine Coalition (
Food supply veterinary medicine embraces a broad array of veterinary professional activities, specialties and responsibilities, and is defined as the full range of veterinary medical practices contributing to the production of a safe and wholesome food supply and to animal, human, and environmental health. The privately practicing food animal veterinary practitioner population within the US is, numerically, the largest, and arguably the most important single component of the food supply veterinary medical sector. Private practice food animal veterinarians, working closely with livestock producers and State and Federal officials, constitute the first line of defense against spread of endemic and zoonotic diseases, introduction of high consequence foreign animal diseases, emergence and propagation of antibiotic resistance, and other threats to the health and wellbeing of both animals and humans who consume animal products.
Among the most alarming findings of the Coalition-sponsored studies was that insufficient numbers of veterinary students are selecting food supply veterinary medical careers. This development has led both to current workforce imbalances and to projected worsening of localized shortages over the subsequent 10 years. Burdensome educational debt was the leading concern students listed for opting not to choose a career in food animal practice or other food supply veterinary sectors. According to the American Veterinary Medical Association's (AVMA) 2015 report on veterinary debt and income, the mean veterinary educational debt for students graduating from veterinary school with debt was $153,191. Such debt loads incentivize students to select other veterinary careers, such as companion animal medicine, which tend to be more financially lucrative and, therefore, enable students to more quickly repay their outstanding educational loans. Furthermore, when this issue was studied in the Coalition report from the perspective of identifying solutions to this workforce imbalance, panelists were asked to rate 18 different strategies for addressing shortages. Responses from the panelists overwhelmingly showed that student debt repayment and scholarship programs were the most important strategies in addressing future shortages (JAVMA 229:57-69). When the VMLRP was first authorized in 2005, the average graduating educational debt of veterinarians was approximately $75,000. Since that time average educational debt burden has more than doubled thereby greatly exacerbating the leading factor promoting the workforce imbalance this program seeks to mitigate.
The VMLRP is aligned with the USDA Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2014-
In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations (5 CFR part 1320) that implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements imposed by the implementation of these guidelines have been approved by OMB Control Number 0524-0046.
In January 2003, the National Veterinary Medical Service Act (NVMSA) was passed into law adding section 1415A to the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1997 (NARETPA). This law established a new Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program (7 U.S.C. 3151a) authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out a program of entering into agreements with veterinarians under which they agree to provide veterinary services in veterinarian shortage situations.
In FY 2010, NIFA announced the first funding opportunity for the VMLRP. From FY 2010 through FY 2015, NIFA received 995 applications from which 291 VMLRP awards totaling $25,292,341 were issued. Funding for FY 2016 and future years are based on annual appropriations and balances, if any, carried forward from prior years, and may vary from year to year.
Section 7105 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Public Law 110-246, (FCEA) amended section 1415A to revise the determination of veterinarian shortage situations to consider (1) geographical areas that the Secretary determines have a shortage of veterinarians; and (2) areas of veterinary practice that the Secretary determines have a shortage of veterinarians, such as food animal medicine, public health, epidemiology, and food safety. This section also added that priority should be given to agreements with veterinarians for the practice of food animal medicine in veterinarian shortage situations.
NARETPA section 1415A requires the Secretary, when determining the amount of repayment for a year of service by a veterinarian to consider the ability of USDA to maximize the number of agreements from the amounts appropriated and to provide an incentive to serve in veterinary service shortage areas with the greatest need.
The Secretary delegated the authority to carry out this program to NIFA pursuant to 7 CFR 2.66(a)(141).
Pursuant to the requirements enacted in the NVMSA of 2004 (as revised), and the implementing regulation for this Act, Part 3431 Subpart A of the VMLRP Final Rule [75 FR 20239-20248], NIFA hereby implements guidelines for authorized State Animal Health Officials (SAHO) to nominate veterinary shortage situations for the FY 2016 program cycle:
Section 1415A of NARETPA, as amended and revised by Section 7105 of FCEA directs determination of veterinarian shortage situations to consider (1) geographical areas that the Secretary determines have a shortage of veterinarians; and (2) areas of veterinary practice that the Secretary determines have a shortage of veterinarians, such as food animal medicine, public health, epidemiology, and food safety. This section also added that priority should be given to agreements with veterinarians for the practice of food animal medicine in veterinarian shortage situations.
While the NVMSA (as amended) specifies priority be given to food animal medicine shortage situations, and that consideration also be given to specialty areas such as public health, epidemiology and food safety, the Act does not identify any areas of veterinary practice as ineligible. Accordingly, all nominated veterinary shortage situations will be considered eligible for submission. However, assessment of submitted nominations by the external review panel convened by NIFA will reflect the intent of Congress that priority be given to certain types of veterinary service shortage situations. NIFA therefore anticipates that the stronger nominations will be those directly addressing food supply veterinary medicine shortage situations.
NIFA has adopted definitions of the practice of veterinary medicine and the practice of food supply medicine that are broadly inclusive of the critical roles veterinarians serve in both public practice and private practice situations. Nominations describing either public or private practice veterinary shortage situations will therefore be eligible for submission.
The only authorized respondent on behalf of each State is the chief State Animal Health Official (SAHO), as duly authorized by the Governor or the Governor's designee in each State. The chief SAHO must submit nominations using the Veterinarian Shortage Situation Nomination Form (OMB Control Number 0524-0046), which is available in the VMLRP Shortage Situations section on the VMLRP Web site at
In its consideration of fair, transparent and objective approaches to solicitation of shortage area nominations, NIFA evaluated three alternative strategies before deciding on the appropriate strategy. The first option considered was to impose no limits on the number of nominations submitted. The second was to allow each state the same number of nominations. The third (eventually selected) was to differentially cap the number of nominations per state based on defensible and intuitive criteria.
The first option, providing no limits to the number of nominations per state, is fair to the extent that each state and insular area has equal opportunity to nominate as many situations as desired. However, funding for the VMLRP is limited (relative to anticipated demand), so allowing potentially high and disproportionate submission rates of nominations could both unnecessarily burden the nominators and the reviewers with a potential avalanche of nominations and dilute highest need situations with lower need situations. Moreover, NIFA believes that the distribution of opportunity under this program (
The second option, limiting all states and insular areas to the same number of nominations suffers from some of the same disadvantages as option one. It has the benefit of limiting administrative burden on both the SAHO and the nomination review process. However, like option one, there would be no correlation between the mapped pattern of certified shortage situations and the actual pattern of need. For example, Guam and Rhode Island would be allowed to submit the same number of nominations as Texas and Nebraska, despite the large difference in the sizes of their respective animal agriculture industries and rural land areas requiring veterinary service coverage.
The third option, to cap the number of nominations in relation to major parameters correlating with veterinary service demand, achieves the goals both of practical control over the administrative burden to the states and NIFA, and of achieving a mapped pattern of certified nominations that approximates the actual shortage distribution. In addition, this method limits dilution of highest need areas with lower need areas. The disadvantage of this strategy is that there is no validated, unbiased, direct measure of veterinary shortage, and so it is necessary to employ parameters that correlate with the hypothetical cumulative relative need for each state in comparison to other states.
In the absence of a validated unbiased direct measure of relative veterinary service need or risk for each state and insular area, the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) provided NIFA with reliable public data that correlate with demand for food supply veterinary service. NIFA consulted with NASS and determined that the NASS variables most strongly correlated with state-level food supply veterinary service need are “Livestock and Livestock Products Total Sales ($)” and “Land Area” (acres). The “Livestock and Livestock Products Total Sales ($)” variable broadly predicts veterinary service need in a State because this is a normalized (to cash value) estimate of the extent of (live) animal agriculture in the state. The State “land area” variable predicts veterinary service need because there is positive correlation between state land area, percent of state area classified as rural and the percent of land devoted to actual or potential livestock production. Importantly, land area is also directly correlated with the number of veterinarians needed to provide veterinary services in a state because of the practical limitations relating to the maximum radius of a standard veterinary service area. Due to fuel and other cost factors, the maximum radius a veterinarian operating a mobile veterinary service can cover is approximately 60 miles, which roughly corresponds to two or three contiguous counties of average size.
Although these two NASS variables are not perfect predictors of veterinary service demand, NIFA believes they account for a significant proportion of several of the most relevant factors influencing veterinary service need and risk for the purpose of fairly and transparently estimating veterinary service demand. To further ensure fairness and equitability, NIFA is employing these variables in a straightforward and transparent manner that ensures every state and insular area is eligible for at least one nomination and that all States receive an apportionment of nominations, relative to their geographic size and size of agricultural animal industries.
Following this rationale, the Secretary is specifying the maximum number of nominations per state in order to (1) assure distribution of designated shortage areas in a manner generally reflective of the differential overall demand for food supply veterinary services in different states, (2) assure the number of shortage situation nominations submitted fosters emphasis on selection by nominators and applicants of the highest priority need areas, and (3) provide practical and proportional limitations of the administrative burden borne by SAHOs preparing nominations, and by panelists serving on the NIFA nominations review panel.
Furthermore, instituting a limit on the number of nominations is consistent with language in the Final Rule stating, “The solicitation may specify the maximum number of nominations that may be submitted by each State animal health official.”
The number of designated shortage situations per state will be limited by NIFA, and this has an impact on the number of new nominations a state may submit each time NIFA solicits shortage nominations. In the 2016 cycle, NIFA is again accepting the number of nominations equivalent to the allowable number of designated shortage areas for each state. All eligible submitting entities will, for the 2016 cycle, have an opportunity to do the following: (1) Retain designated status for any shortage situation successfully designated in 2015 (if there is no change to any information, the nomination will be approved for 2016 without the need for re-review by the merit panel), (2) rescind any nomination officially designated in 2015, and (3) submit new nominations. The total of the number of new nominations plus designated nominations retained (carried over) may not exceed the maximum number of nominations each entity is permitted. Any amendment to an existing shortage nomination is presumed to constitute a significant change. Therefore, an amended nomination must be rescinded and resubmitted to NIFA as a new nomination and it will be evaluated by the 2016 review panel.
The maximum number of nominations (and potential designations) has been updated based on 2012 NASS Agricultural Census data. Awards from previous years have no bearing on a state's maximum number of allowable shortage nomination
Table I lists “Special Consideration Areas” which include any State or Insular Area not reporting data, and/or reporting less than $1,000,000 in annual Livestock and Livestock Products Total Sales ($), and/or possessing less than 500,000 acres, as reported by NASS. One nomination is allocated to any State or Insular Area classified as a Special Consideration Area.
Table II shows how NIFA determined nomination allocation based on quartile ranks of States for two variables broadly correlated with demand for food supply veterinary services: “Livestock and Livestock Products Total Sales ($)” (LPTS) and “Land Area (acres)” (LA). The total number of NIFA- designated shortage situations per state in any given program year is based on the quartile ranking of each state in terms of LPTS and LA. States for which NASS has both LPTS and LA values, and which have at least $1,000,000 LPTS and at least 500,000 acres LA (typically all states plus Puerto Rico), were independently ranked from least to greatest value for each of these two composite variables. The two ranked lists were then divided into quartiles with quartile 1 containing the lowest variable values and quartile 4 containing the highest variable values. Each state then received the number of designated shortage situations corresponding to the number of the quartile in which the state falls. Thus, a state that falls in the second quartile for LA and the third quartile for LPTS may submit a maximum of five shortage situation nominations (2 + 3). This transparent computation was made for each state thereby giving a range of 2 to 8 shortage situation nominations, contingent upon each state's quartile ranking for the two variables.
The maximum number of designated shortage situations for each State in 2016 is shown in Table III.
While Federal Lands are widely dispersed within States and Insular Areas across the country, they constitute a composite total land area over twice the size of Alaska. If the 200-mile limit U.S. coastal waters and associated fishery areas are included, Federal Land total acreage would exceed 1 billion. Both State and Federal Animal Health officials have responsibilities for matters relating to terrestrial and aquatic food animal health on Federal Lands. Interaction between wildlife and domestic livestock, such as sheep and cattle, is particularly common in the plains states where significant portions of Federal lands are leased for grazing. Therefore, both SAHOs and the Chief Federal Animal Health Officer (Deputy Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service or designee) may submit nominations to address shortage situations on or related to Federal Lands.
NIFA emphasizes that shortage nomination allocation is set to broadly balance the number of designated shortage situations across states prior to the application and award phases of the VMLRP. Awards will be made based strictly on the peer review panels' assessment of the quality of the match between the knowledge, skills and abilities of the applicant and the attributes of the specific shortage situation applied for, thus no state will be given a preference for placement of awardees. Additionally, unless otherwise specified in the shortage nomination form, each designated shortage situation will be limited to one award.
As described in Section 4 above, all SAHOs will, for the FY 2016 cycle, have an opportunity to do the following: (1) Retain (carry over) designated status for any shortage situation successfully designated in 2014 and not revised, without need for reevaluation by merit review panel, (2) rescind any nomination officially designated in 2014, and (3) submit new nominations. The total number of new nominations and designated nominations retained (carried over) may not exceed the maximum number of shortages each state is allocated. An amendment to an existing shortage nomination constitutes a significant change and therefore must be rescinded and resubmitted to NIFA as a new nomination, to be evaluated by the 2016 review panel. The maximum number of nominations (and potential designations) for each state is provided on NIFA's Web site at
The following process is the mechanism by which a SAHO should retain or rescind a designated nomination: Each SAHO will go to the map of VMLRP designated shortage situations for FY 2015 (
Both new and retained nominations must be submitted on the Veterinary Shortage Situation Nomination form provided in the VMLRP Shortage Situations section at
Submissions must be made by clicking the submit button on the Veterinarian Shortage Situation nomination form provided in the VMLRP Shortage Situations section at www.nifa.usda.gov/vmlrp.
This form is sent as a data file directly to the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program; National Institute of Food and Agriculture; U.S. Department of Agriculture. Shortage situation nominations, both new and carry over, must be submitted on or before February 10, 2016.
Each shortage situation is approved for one program year cycle only. However, any previously approved shortage situation not filled in a given program year may be resubmitted with no changes as a “carry-over” shortage in response to the solicitation for shortage nominations the following program year. Content of carry-over shortage nominations must not be changed in any respect, except for providing a revised date of submission and/or the name of a new submitting chief SAHO in the event the person holding that post has changed. Carry-over shortage nominations will not be required to undergo panel merit review and shall therefore be automatically approved. However, by resubmitting a nomination in a following program cycle, the SAHO is affirming that it is his or her professional judgment that the original case made for shortage status, and the original description of needs, are still current and accurate.
For the purpose of implementing the solicitation for veterinary shortage situations, the definitions provided in 7 CFR part 3431 are applicable.
The veterinary shortage situation nomination form is available in the VMLRP Shortage Situations section at www.nifa.usda.gov/vmlrp. The completed form must be sent to NIFA by selecting “SUBMIT” on the nomination form.
Following conclusion of the nomination and designation process, NIFA will prepare lists and/or maps that include all designated shortage situations for the current program year. This effort requires a physical location that represents the center of the service area for a geographic shortage or the location of the main office or work address for a public practice and/or specialty practice shortage. For example, if the state seeks to certify a tri-county area as a food animal veterinary service (
Congressional intent is for this program to incentivize applicants to “serve in veterinary service shortage areas with the greatest need.” There is therefore the presumption that all areas nominated as shortage situations should be classified as at least “moderate priority” shortages. To assist nomination merit review panelists and award phase peer panelists in scoring shortage nominations and ranking applications from VMLRP applicants, SAHOs are asked to characterize each shortage situation nomination as “Moderate Priority”, “High Priority”, or “Critical Priority” shortages.
Moderate Priority: This shortage prioritization corresponds to an area lacking in some aspect of food supply veterinary services, commensurate with the service percent full-time-equivalency (FTE) specified. Absence of, or insufficient, trained “eyes and ears” of a veterinarian serving a food animal production area is sufficient to constitute moderate priority shortage status. This is because access to veterinary services is necessary for basic animal health, animal well-being, production profitability, and for food safety, and because high consequence disease outbreaks in agricultural animals or natural catastrophes can occur spontaneously anywhere. In such cases, early detection of disease and/or treatment of animals are essential. These activities are the authorized purview of a licensed veterinarian. In addition to the above examples, the SAHO is invited to make a unique case based on other situation-specific risk criteria, for classifying a nominated area as a Moderate Priority shortage.
High Priority: This shortage prioritization corresponds to an area lacking sufficient access to food supply veterinary services, commensurate with the service percent FTE specified. High Priority status is justified by meeting the criteria for Moderate Priority status plus any of a variety of additional concerns relating to food supply veterinary medicine and/or public health. For example, the area may exhibit an especially large census of food animals in comparison to available veterinary services. Special animal or public health threats unique to the area, such as a recent history of outbreaks of high consequence, reportable, endemic animal and zoonotic diseases (
Critical Priority: This shortage prioritization corresponds to an area severely lacking in some aspect of food supply or public health-related veterinary services, commensurate with the service percent FTE specified. Critical priority status is justified by meeting the criteria for moderate and/or high priority status plus any of a variety of additional serious concerns relating to the roles food supply veterinarians play in protecting animal and public health. For example, an area may exhibit an especially high potential for natural disasters or for incursion of catastrophic foreign animal disease such as Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza, Mad Cow Disease, or Foot and Mouth Disease. High risk areas could include high through-put international animal importation sites and areas where wildlife and domestic food animals cross national borders carrying infectious disease agents (
SAHOs identifying this shortage type must check one or more boxes indicating which specie(s) constitute the veterinary shortage situation. Indicate either “Must Cover” or “May Cover” to stipulate which species a future awardee must be prepared, willing, and committed to provide services for, versus which species an awardee could treat using a minor percentage of their time obligated under a VMLRP contract. The Type I shortage situation must entail at least an 80 percent time commitment to private practice food supply veterinary medicine. The nominator will specify the minimum percent time (between 80 and 100 percent of a standard 40 hour week) a veterinarian must commit in order to satisfactorily fill the specific nominated situation. The shortage situation may be located anywhere (rural or non-rural) so long as the veterinary service shortages to be mitigated are consistent with the definition of “practice of food supply veterinary medicine.” The minimum 80 percent time commitment is, in part, recognition of the fact that occasionally food animal veterinary practitioners are expected to meet the needs of other veterinary service sectors such as clientele owning companion and exotic animals. Type I nominations are intended to address those shortage situations where the nominator believes a veterinarian can operate profitably committing between 80 and 100 percent time to food animal medicine activities in the designated shortage area, given the client base and other socio-economic factors impacting viability of veterinary practices in the area. This generally corresponds to a shortage area where clients can reasonably be expected to pay for professional veterinary services and where food animal populations are sufficiently dense to support a (or another) veterinarian. The personal residence of the veterinarian (VMLRP award recipient) and the address of veterinary practice employing the veterinarian may or may not fall within the geographic bounds of the designated shortage area.
SAHOs identifying this shortage type must check one or more boxes indicating which specie(s) constitute the
SAHOs identifying this shortage type must, in the spaces provided, identify the “Employer” and the presumptive “Position Title”, and check one or more of the appropriate boxes identifying the specialty/disciplinary area(s) being nominated as a shortage situation. This is a broad nomination category comprising many types of specialized veterinary training and employment areas relating to food supply veterinary workforce capacity and capability. These positions are typically located in city, county, State and Federal Government, and institutions of higher education. Examples of positions within the public practice sector include university faculty and staff, veterinary laboratory diagnostician, County Public Health Officer, State Veterinarian, State Public Health Veterinarian, State Epidemiologist, FSIS meat inspector, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Area Veterinarian in Charge (AVIC), and Federal Veterinary Medical Officer (VMO).
Veterinary shortage situations such as those listed above are eligible for consideration under Type III nomination. However, nominators should be aware that Congress has stipulated that the VMLRP must emphasize private food animal practice shortage situations. Accordingly, NIFA anticipates that loan repayments for the Public Practice sector will be limited to approximately 10 percent of total nominations and/or available funds.
The minimum time commitment serving under a Type III shortage nomination is 49 percent. The nominator will specify the minimum percent time (between 49 percent and 100 percent) a veterinarian must commit in order to satisfactorily fill the specific nominated situation. NIFA understands that some public practice employment opportunities that are shortage situations may be part-time positions. For example, a veterinarian pursuing an advanced degree (in a shortage discipline area) on a part-time basis may also be employed by the university for the balance of the veterinarian's time to provide part-time professional veterinary service(s) such as teaching, clinical service, or laboratory animal care that may or may not also qualify as veterinary shortage situations. The 49 percent minimum therefore provides flexibility to nominators wishing to certify public practice shortage situations that would be ineligible under more stringent minimum percent time requirements.
Minimum percent FTE service obligated under the VMLRP is specified for each of the three shortage types. However, the nominator may indicate, in the box provided on page 2 of the nomination form, a greater percent FTE than the specified minimum, according to the following guidelines. For a Type I shortage, the minimum FTE obligation is 80 percent, but the nominator may specify up to 100 percent (100 percent FTE corresponds to 40 hours/week). The minimum FTE obligation is 30 percent for Type II shortage situation, but the nominator may specify up to 79 percent. Higher percentages should be submitted as Type I shortages. The minimum FTE obligation is 49 percent for Type III (public practice) shortage situations, but the nominator may specify up to 100 percent. An entry should be made in the box for specification of percent FTE if the percentage specified is other than the default minimum. Otherwise the box should be left blank. In assigning a percentage FTE, SAHOs should be cognizant of the impact this has on an eventual awardee. If the percentage is too high for an awardee to achieve, he or she could fall into breach status under the program and owe any distributed funds back to NIFA. NIFA requires formal quarterly certification that minimum service time was worked before each quarterly loan repayment is paid to the awardee's lender(s). Accordingly, NIFA advises that a nomination be submitted only if the SAHO is confident that an awardee can meet the default, or optionally specified, minimum FTE percentage each and every one of the 12 quarters (
Within the allowed word limit the nominator should clearly state overarching objectives the State hopes to achieve by placing a veterinarian in the nominated situation and measure(s) awardees and NIFA could use to assess success. Include the minimum percent time commitment (within the range of the shortage type selected) the awardee is expected to devote to filling the specific food supply veterinary shortage situation.
Within the allowed word limit the nominator should clearly state the principal day-to-day professional activities that would have to be conducted in order to achieve the objectives described in a. above.
Within the allowed word limit the nominator should explain any prior efforts to mitigate this veterinary service shortage and prospects for recruiting veterinarian(s) in the future.
Within the allowed word limit the nominator should explain the consequences of not addressing this veterinary shortage situation.
SAHOs submitting shortage nominations should check both “affirmation” boxes on the last page of the nomination form. These two affirmations provide assurance that submitting SAHOs understand the shortage nomination process and the importance of the SAHO having reasonable confidence that the nomination submitted describes a bona fide shortage area. The second assurance is particularly important to help avoid the placement of a VMLRP awardee where veterinary coverage already exists, and where undue competition could lead to insufficient clientele demand to support either the awardee or the veterinary practice originally serving the area.
NIFA will convene a panel of food supply veterinary medicine experts from Federal and state agencies, as well as institutions receiving Animal Health and Disease Research Program funds under section 1433 of NARETPA, who will review the nominations and make recommendations to the NIFA Program Manager. NIFA explored the possibility of including experts from non-governmental professional organizations and sectors for this process, but under NARETPA section 1409A(e), panelists for the purposes of this process are limited to Federal and State agencies and cooperating state institutions (
NIFA will review the panel recommendations and designate the VMLRP shortage situations. The list of shortage situations will be made available on the VMLRP Web site at
Criteria used by the shortage situation nomination review panel and NIFA for certifying a veterinary shortage situation will be consistent with the information requested in the shortage situations nomination form. NIFA understands that defining the risk landscape associated with shortages of veterinary services throughout a state is a process that may require consideration of many qualitative and quantitative factors. In addition, each shortage situation will be characterized by a different array of subjective and objective supportive information that must be developed into a cogent case identifying, characterizing, and justifying a given geographic or disciplinary area as deficient in certain types of veterinary capacity or service. To accommodate the uniqueness of each shortage situation, the nomination form provides opportunities to present a case using both supportive metrics and narrative explanations to define and explain the proposed need. At the same time, the elements of the nomination form provide a common structure for the information collection process which will in turn facilitate fair comparison of the relative merits of each nomination by the evaluation panel.
While NIFA anticipates some arguments made in support of a given shortage situation will be qualitative, respondents are encouraged to present verifiable quantitative and qualitative evidentiary information wherever possible. Absence of quantitative data such as animal and veterinarian census data for the proposed shortage area(s) may lead the panel to recommend not approving the shortage nomination.
The maximum point value review panelists may award for each element is as follows:
20 points: Describe the objectives of a veterinarian meeting this shortage situation as well as being located in the community, area, state/insular area, or position requested above.
20 points: Describe the activities of a veterinarian meeting this shortage situation and being located in the community, area, state/insular area, or position requested above.
5 points: Describe any past efforts to recruit and retain a veterinarian in the shortage situation identified above.
35 points: Describe the risk of this veterinarian position not being secured or retained. Include the risk(s) to the production of a safe and wholesome food supply and/or to animal, human, and environmental health not only in the community but in the region, state/insular area, nation, and/or international community.
An additional 20 points will be used to evaluate overall merit/quality of the case made for each nomination.
Prior to the panel being convened, shortage situation nominations will be evaluated and scored according to the established scoring system by a primary reviewer. When the panel convenes, the primary reviewer will present each nomination orally in summary form. After each presentation, panelists will have an opportunity, if necessary, to discuss the nomination, with the primary reviewer leading the discussion and recording comments. After the panel discussion is complete, any scoring revisions will be made by and at the discretion of the primary reviewer. The panel is then polled to recommend, or not recommend, the shortage situation for designation. Nominations scoring 70 or higher by the primary reviewer (on a scale of 0 to 100), and receiving a simple majority vote in support of designation as a shortage situation will be “recommended for designation as a shortage situation.” Nominations scoring below 70 by the primary reviewer, and failure to achieve a simple majority vote in support of designation will be “not recommended for designation as a shortage situation.” In the event of a discrepancy between the primary reviewer's scoring and the panel poll results, the VMLRP program manager will be authorized to make the final determination on the nomination's designation.
United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of Commission Business Meeting.
Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, Public Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591.
Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the briefing and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or at
This meeting is open to the public.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the General Services Administration, renewed the Charter for the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness on November 17, 2015.
The Charter for the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness was renewed on November 17, 2015.
Richard Boll, Supply Chain Team, Room 11014, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; phone 202-482-1135; email:
The Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the General Services Administration, renewed the Charter for the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness on November 17, 2015. This Notice is published in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, § 9). It has been determined that the Committee is necessary and in the public interest. The Committee was established pursuant to Commerce's authority under 15 U.S.C. 1512, established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C., and with the concurrence of the General Services Administration. The Committee provides advice to the Secretary on the necessary elements of a comprehensive policy approach to supply chain competitiveness designed to support U.S. export growth and national economic competitiveness, encourage innovation, facilitate the movement of goods, and improve the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains for goods and services in the domestic and global economy; and to provide advice to the Secretary on regulatory policies and programs and investment priorities that affect the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains. The total number of members that may serve on the Committee is a maximum of 45.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On August 11, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published the
Patrick O'Connor, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0989.
On August 11, 2015, the Department published the
The product covered by the order is certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from the PRC.
The issue raised in Petitioner's case brief is addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum which is dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice. A list of the sections in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Services System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to
In the
In the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department has determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of these final results of this review. The Department intends to instruct CBP to liquidate any entries of subject merchandise from Hebei Iron, Hunan Valin; Jiangyin Plastic, Jiangyin Steel, and Xiamen Paper, at 128.59 percent (the PRC-wide rate).
Additionally, pursuant to the Department's practice, because we determined that Wuyang Iron had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate any suspended entries of subject merchandise from Wuyang Iron at the PRC-wide rate.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters which are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but which have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, including Hebei Iron; Hunan Valin; Jiangyin Plastic; Jiangyin Steel; and Xiamen Paper, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 128.59 percent; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
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 Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 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/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
These final results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty order (CVD) order on narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge (ribbons) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
Toby Vandall, Office I, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1664.
On August 3, 2015, the Department initiated a sunset review of the
The Department received adequate substantive responses from the domestic industry within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department did not receive a substantive response from the Government of the PRC or any respondent interested party to the proceeding. Because the Department received no response from the respondent interested parties, the Department conducted an expedited review of this
The merchandise subject to the order is narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge, in any length, but with a width (measured at the narrowest span of the ribbon) less than or equal to 12 centimeters, composed of, in whole or in part, man-made fibers (whether artificial or synthetic, including but not limited to nylon, polyester, rayon, polypropylene, and polyethylene teraphthalate), metal threads and/or metalized yarns, or any combination thereof. The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under the HTSUS statistical categories 5806.32.1020; 5806.32.1030; 5806.32.1050 and 5806.32.1060. Subject merchandise also may enter under subheadings 5806.31.00; 5806.32.20; 5806.39.20; 5806.39.30; 5808.90.00; 5810.91.00; 5810.99.90; 5903.90.10; 5903.90.25; 5907.00.60; and 5907.00.80 and under statistical categories 5806.32.1080; 5810.92.9080; 5903.90.3090; and 6307.90.9889. The HTSUS statistical categories and subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive.
All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy and the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the
Pursuant to sections 752(b)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/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.
The Department is issuing and publishing these final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) is conducting the fourth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on seamless refined copper pipe and tube from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), covering the period November 1, 2013, through October 31, 2014. The Department preliminarily determines that, during the period of review (“POR”), respondent Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc., Hong Kong GD Trading Co., Ltd., and Golden Dragon Holding (Hong Kong) International, Ltd. and eight affiliated producers that comprise the GD Single
Drew Jackson, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 482-4406.
The merchandise subject to the order is seamless refined copper pipe and tube. The product is currently classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) item numbers 7411.10.1030 and 7411.10.1090. Products subject to this order may also enter under HTSUS item numbers 7407.10.1500, 7419.99.5050, 8415.90.8065, and 8415.90.8085. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order remains dispositive.
On July 15, 2015, the Department extended the time period for issuing the preliminary results of this review until November 30, 2015.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The Department initiated this review on December 23, 2014.
Based on record evidence, the Department preliminarily finds that the following companies are affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”): (1) Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc.; (2) Golden Dragon Holding (Hong Kong) International, Ltd.; (3) Hong Kong GD Trading Co., Ltd.; (4) Shanghai Longyang Precise Copper Compound Copper Tube Co., Ltd.; (5) Jiangsu Canghuan Copper Industry Co., Ltd.; (6) Guangdong Longfeng Precise Copper Tube Co., Ltd.; (7) Wuxi Jinlong Chuancun Precise Copper Tube Co., Ltd.; (8) Longkou Longpeng Precise Copper Tube Co., Ltd.; (9) Xinxiang Longxiang Precise Copper Tube Co., Ltd.; (10) Coaxian Ailun Metal Processing Co., Ltd.; and (11) Chonqing Longyu Precise Copper Tube Co., Ltd.
In addition, based on the information presented in this review, we preliminarily find that these companies should be treated as a single entity for the purposes of this review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f). For additional information,
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Department verified constructed export price (“CEP”) sales information provided by the Golden Dragon Group Companies. The Department conducted the verification using standard verification procedures including the examination of relevant sales and financial records and the selection and review of original documentation containing relevant information. Further, after the issuance of these preliminary results of review, the Department will verify the remaining sales and production information submitted by the Golden Dragon Group Companies, in the PRC.
The verification reports will be on file electronically
The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act. The Department calculated export prices and constructed export prices in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because the PRC is an non-market economy country, within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, the Department calculated normal value in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary results of this review,
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the POR:
The Department intends to disclose to parties the calculations performed for these preliminary results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
All submissions, with limited exceptions, must be filed electronically using ACCESS.
Unless otherwise extended, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department will determine, and Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
On October 24, 2011, the Department announced a refinement to its assessment practice in NME antidumping duty cases.
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
The Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price. The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain magnesia carbon bricks (MCBs) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Jacqueline Arrowsmith, Office VII, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5255.
On September 21, 2010, the Department published the
The Department received an adequate substantive response from the domestic industry within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department did not receive a response from the Government of the PRC (GOC) or any respondent interested party to the proceeding. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(l)(ii)(B)(2) and (C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited review of this
The merchandise subject to this
All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
Pursuant to sections 752(b)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
The Department is issuing and publishing these final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) is conducting the 20th administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (PRC) covering the period of review (POR) November 1, 2013, through October 31, 2014.
Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Alexander Cipolla, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5255 or (202) 482-4956.
The merchandise covered by the order includes all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves. Fresh garlic that are subject to the order are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, and 0703.20.0090. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive. For a full description of the scope of this order, please see “III. Scope of the Order” in the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
On December 23, 2014, the Department initiated a review of 161 companies in this proceeding.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export prices were calculated in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Because the PRC is a nonmarket economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, NV has been calculated in accordance with section 773(c). We relied, in part, on the facts available, with adverse inferences, for our preliminary determination, in accordance with section 776 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
The Department's change in policy regarding conditional review of the PRC-wide entity applies to this administrative review.
In accordance with section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department employed a limited examination methodology, as it determined that it would not be practicable to examine individually all companies for which a review request was made. There were 12 exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC that have demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate but were not selected for individual examination in this review. These 12 exporters are listed in Appendix II.
Neither the Act nor the Department's regulations address the establishment of the rate applied to individual companies not selected for examination where the Department limited its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. The Department's practice in cases involving limited selection based on exporters accounting for the largest volumes of trade has been to look to section 735(c)(5) of the Act for guidance, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act instructs the Department to use rates established for individually investigated producers and exporters, excluding any rates that are zero,
The companies listed in Appendix III timely filed “no shipment” certifications stating that they had no entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Consistent with its practice, the Department asked CBP to conduct a query of potential shipments made by these companies. CBP did not provide evidence that contradicted the parties' no shipment claims. Based on the certifications by these companies and our analysis of CBP information, we preliminarily determine that the companies listed in Appendix III did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR. In addition, the Department finds that consistent with its refinement to its assessment practice in non-market economy (NME) cases, further discussed below, it is appropriate not to rescind the review in part in these circumstances but to complete the review with respect to these 10 companies and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period November 1, 2013, through October 31, 2014:
The Department intends to disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Interested parties may submit written comments (case briefs) no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs) within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice.
The Department intends to issue the final results of this review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
The Department announced a refinement to its assessment practice in NME cases. Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for merchandise that was not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by an exporter individually examined during this review, but that entered under the case number of that exporter (
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the companies listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in these final results of review (except, if the rate is zero or
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public workshops.
Free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held in January, February, and March of 2016. Certain fishermen and shark dealers are required to attend a workshop to meet regulatory requirements and to maintain valid permits. Specifically, the Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop is mandatory for all federally permitted Atlantic shark dealers. The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop is mandatory for vessel owners and operators who use bottom longline, pelagic longline, or gillnet gear, and who have also been issued shark or swordfish limited access permits. Additional free workshops will be conducted during 2016 and will be announced in a future notice.
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held on January 14, February 11, and March 17, 2016.
The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held on January 15, January 27, February 2, February 16, March 1, and March 16, 2016.
See
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held in Norfolk, VA; Kenner, LA; and Fort Pierce, FL.
The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held in Key Largo, FL; Portsmouth, NH; Kitty Hawk, NC; Palm Coast, FL; Manahawkin, NJ; and Houston, TX.
See
Rick Pearson by phone: (727) 824-5399, or by fax: (727) 824-5398.
The workshop schedules, registration information, and a list of frequently asked questions regarding these workshops are posted on the Internet at:
Since January 1, 2008, Atlantic shark dealers have been prohibited from receiving, purchasing, trading, or bartering for Atlantic sharks unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate is on the premises of each business listed under the shark dealer permit that first receives Atlantic sharks (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). Dealers who attend and successfully complete a workshop are issued a certificate for each place of business that is permitted to receive sharks. These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. Approximately 116 free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops have been conducted since January 2007.
Currently, permitted dealers may send a proxy to an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop. However, if a dealer opts to send a proxy, the dealer must designate a proxy for each place of business covered by the dealer's permit which first receives Atlantic sharks. Only one certificate will be issued to each proxy. A proxy must be a person who is currently employed by a place of business covered by the dealer's permit; is a primary participant in the identification, weighing, and/or first receipt of fish as they are offloaded from a vessel; and who fills out dealer reports. Atlantic shark dealers are prohibited from renewing a Federal shark dealer permit unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate for each business location that first receives Atlantic sharks has been submitted with the permit renewal application. Additionally, trucks or other conveyances that are extensions of a dealer's place of business must possess a copy of a valid dealer or proxy Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate.
1. January 14, 2016, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., LaQuinta Inn & Suites, 1387 North Military Highway, Norfolk, VA 23502.
2. February 11, 2016, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., LaQuinta Inn & Suites, 2610 Williams Boulevard, Kenner, LA 70062.
3. March 17, 2016, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., LaQuinta Inn & Suites, 2655 Crossroads Parkway, Fort Pierce, FL 34945.
To register for a scheduled Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, please contact Eric Sander at
To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items to the workshop:
• Atlantic shark dealer permit holders must bring proof that the attendee is an owner or agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable permit, and proof of identification.
• Atlantic shark dealer proxies must bring documentation from the permitted dealer acknowledging that the proxy is attending the workshop on behalf of the permitted Atlantic shark dealer for a specific business location, a copy of the appropriate valid permit, and proof of identification.
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops are designed to reduce the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks reported in the dealer reporting form and increase the accuracy of species-specific dealer-reported information. Reducing the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks will improve quota monitoring and the data used in stock assessments. These workshops will train shark dealer permit holders or their proxies to properly identify Atlantic shark carcasses.
Since January 1, 2007, shark limited-access and swordfish limited-access permit holders who fish with longline or gillnet gear have been required to submit a copy of their Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop certificate in order to renew either permit (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. As such, vessel owners who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel owners whose certificate(s) will expire prior to the next permit renewal, must attend a workshop to fish with, or renew, their swordfish and shark limited-access permits. Additionally, new shark and swordfish limited-access permit applicants who intend to fish with longline or gillnet gear must attend a Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and submit a copy of their workshop certificate before either of the permits will be issued. Approximately 220 free Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops have been conducted since 2006.
In addition to certifying vessel owners, at least one operator on board vessels issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit that uses longline or gillnet gear is required to attend a Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and receive a certificate. Vessels that have been issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit and that use longline or gillnet gear may not fish unless both the vessel owner and operator have valid workshop certificates onboard at all times. Vessel operators who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel operators whose certificate(s) will expire prior to their next fishing trip, must attend a workshop to operate a vessel with swordfish and shark limited-access permits that uses longline or gillnet gear.
1. January 15, 2016, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 99701 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, FL 33037.
2. January 27, 2016, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 300 Woodbury Avenue, Portsmouth, NH 03801.
3. February 2, 2016, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 5353 North Virginia Dare Trail, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949.
4. February 16, 2016, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 55 Town Center Boulevard, Palm Coast, FL 32164.
5. March 1, 2016, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Holiday Inn, 151 Route 72, Manahawkin, NJ 08020.
6. March 16, 2016, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn Express, 8080 Main Street, Houston, TX 77025.
To register for a scheduled Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop, please contact Angler Conservation Education at (386) 682-0158.
To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items with them to the workshop:
• Individual vessel owners must bring a copy of the appropriate swordfish and/or shark permit(s), a copy of the vessel registration or documentation, and proof of identification.
• Representatives of a business-owned or co-owned vessel must bring proof that the individual is an agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable swordfish and/or shark permit(s), and proof of identification.
• Vessel operators must bring proof of identification.
The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops are designed to teach longline and gillnet fishermen the required techniques for the safe handling and release of entangled and/or hooked protected species, such as sea turtles, marine mammals, and smalltooth sawfish. In an effort to improve reporting, the proper identification of protected species will also be taught at these workshops. Additionally, individuals attending these workshops will gain a better understanding of the requirements for participating in these fisheries. The overall goal of these workshops is to provide participants with the skills needed to reduce the mortality of protected species, which may prevent additional regulations on these fisheries in the future.
16 U.S.C. 1801
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 5, 2016.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Margo Schulze-Haugen, (301) 427-8503 or
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.
Catch reporting from recreational and commercial hand-gear fisheries provides important data used to monitor catches of Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) and supplements other existing data collection programs. Data collected through this program are used for both domestic and international fisheries management and stock assessment purposes.
Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) catch reporting provides real-time catch information used to monitor the BFT fishery. Under the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975 (ATCA, 16 U.S.C. 971), the United States is required to adopt regulations, as necessary and appropriate, to implement recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), including recommendations on a specified BFT quota. BFT catch reporting helps the U.S. monitor this quota and supports scientific research consistent with ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801
Atlantic billfish and swordfish are managed internationally by ICCAT and nationally under ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This collection provides information needed to monitor the recreational catch of Atlantic blue and white marlin, which is applied to the recreational limit established by ICCAT, and the recreational catch of North Atlantic swordfish, which is applied to the U.S. quota established by ICCAT. This collection also provides information on recreational landings of West Atlantic sailfish which is unavailable from other established monitoring programs. Collection of sailfish catch information is authorized under the Magnuson-Stevens Act for purposes of stock management.
Respondents reporting BFT catch in states (and the United States Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico) other than Maryland and North Carolina may use either an internet Web site or a toll-free telephone number. Respondents reporting Atlantic marlin, West Atlantic sailfish, or North Atlantic swordfish in states (and the United States Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico) other than Maryland or North Carolina may use either an internet Web site or a toll-free telephone number to report landings information. In Maryland and North Carolina, a paper reporting system is used for all of the aforementioned species. Under state law, respondents in Maryland and North Carolina must submit a landing card at a state-operated reporting station. States that participate in a landing card program must submit weekly reports and one annual report to NOAA to summarize landings and results to date.
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
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.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to construction activities as part of a wharf recapitalization project. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting public comment on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the Navy to incidentally take marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, during the specified activity.
Comments and information must be received no later than January 6, 2016.
Comments on this proposal should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to
Laura McCue, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
An electronic copy of the Navy's application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained by visiting the Internet at:
The Navy has prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
The incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals may be allowed only if NMFS (through authority delegated by the Secretary) finds that the total taking by the specified activity during the specified time period will (i) have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and (ii) not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking must be set forth, either in specific regulations or in an authorization.
The allowance of such incidental taking under section 101(a)(5)(A), by harassment, serious injury, death, or a combination thereof, requires that regulations be established. Subsequently, a Letter of Authorization may be issued pursuant to the prescriptions established in such regulations, providing that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the specific regulations. Under section 101(a)(5)(D), NMFS may authorize such incidental taking by harassment only, for periods of not more than one year, pursuant to requirements and conditions contained within an IHA. The establishment of prescriptions through either specific regulations or an authorization requires notice and opportunity for public comment.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “. . . any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].”
On July 21, 2015, we received a request from the Navy for authorization of the taking, by Level B harassment only, of marine mammals, incidental to pile driving in association with the
The use of both vibratory and impact pile driving is expected to produce underwater sound at levels that have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals. One species of marine mammal has the potential to be affected by the specified activities: bottlenose dolphin (
Similar wharf construction and pile driving activities in Naval Station Mayport have been authorized by NMFS in the past. The first authorization was effective between September 1, 2014 through August 31, 2015, and the second authorization, which is currently ongoing, is effective from September 8, 2015 through September 7, 2016.
Bravo Wharf is a medium draft, general purpose berthing wharf that was constructed in 1970 and lies at the western edge of the NSM turning basin. Bravo Wharf is approximately 2,000 ft long, 125 ft wide, and has a berthing depth of 50 ft mean lower low water. The wharf is one of two primary deep draft berths at the basin and is capable of berthing ships up to and including large amphibious ships; it is one of three primary ordnance handling berths at the basin. The wharf is a diaphragm steel sheet pile cell structure with a concrete apron, partial concrete encasement of the piling and asphalt paved deck. The wharf is currently in poor condition due to advanced deterioration of the steel sheeting and lack of corrosion protection. This structural deterioration has resulted in the institution of load restrictions within 60 ft of the wharf face. The purpose of this project is to complete necessary repairs to Bravo Wharf. Please refer to the Navy's application for a schematic of the project plan.
The total project is expected to require a maximum of 130 days of in-water pile driving. The project may require up to 24 months for completion; in-water activities are limited to a maximum of 130 days, separated into two phases. If in-water work will extend beyond the effective dates of the IHA, a second IHA application will be submitted by the Navy. There will be a maximum of 110 days for vibratory pile driving (seventy three days in phase I and thirty seven days in phase II), and a contingent 20 days of impact pile driving. The specified activities are expected to occur between October 1, 2016 and September 30, 2017.
NSM is located in northeastern Florida, at the mouth of the St. Johns River and adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean (see Figures 2-1 and 2-2 of the Navy's application). The St. Johns River is the longest river in Florida, with the final 35 mi flowing through the city of Jacksonville. This portion of the river is significant for commercial shipping and military use. At the mouth of the river, near the action area, the Atlantic Ocean is the dominant influence and typical salinities are above 30 ppm. Outside the river mouth, in nearshore waters, moderate oceanic currents tend to flow southward parallel to the coast. Sea surface temperatures range from around 16 °C in winter to 28 °C in summer.
The specific action area consists of the NSM turning basin, an area of approximately 2,000 by 3,000 ft containing ship berthing facilities at sixteen locations along wharves around the basin perimeter. The basin was constructed during the early 1940s by dredging the eastern part of Ribault Bay (at the mouth of the St. Johns River), with dredge material from the basin used to fill parts of the bay and other low-lying areas in order to elevate the land surface. The basin is currently maintained through regular dredging at a depth of 50 ft, with depths at the berths ranging from 30-50 ft. The turning basin, connected to the St. Johns River by a 500-ft-wide entrance channel, will largely contain sound produced by project activities, with the exception of sound propagating east into nearshore Atlantic waters through the entrance channel (see Figure 2-2 of the Navy's application). Bravo Wharf is located in the western corner of the Mayport turning basin.
In order to rehabilitate Bravo Wharf, the Navy proposes to install a new steel sheet pile bulkhead at Bravo Wharf. The project consists of installing a total of approximately 880 single sheet piles (Phase I—berths B-2 and B-3: 590; Phase II—berth B-1: 290). The wall will be anchored at the top and fill consisting of clean gravel and flowable concrete fill will be placed behind the wall. A concrete cap will be formed along the top and outside face of the wall to tie the entire structure together and provide a berthing surface for vessels. The new bulkhead will be designed for a fifty-year service life.
All piles would be driven by vibratory hammer, although impact pile driving may be used as a contingency in cases when vibratory driving is not sufficient to reach the necessary depth. In the unlikely event that impact driving is required, either impact or vibratory driving could occur on a given day, but concurrent use of vibratory and impact drivers would not occur. The Navy estimates that a total of 130 in-water work days may be required to complete pile driving activity, which includes twenty days for contingency impact driving, if necessary.
There are four marine mammal species which may inhabit or transit through the waters nearby NSM at the mouth of the St. Johns River and in nearby nearshore Atlantic waters. These include the bottlenose dolphin, Atlantic spotted dolphin (
In the species accounts provided here, we offer a brief introduction to the species and relevant stock as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and
Northern Right whales occur in sub-polar to temperate waters in all major ocean basins in the world with a clear migratory pattern, occurring in high latitudes in summer (feeding) and lower latitudes in winter (breeding). North Atlantic right whales exhibit extensive migratory patterns, traveling along the eastern seaboard from calving grounds off Georgia and northern Florida to northern feeding areas off of the northeast U.S. and Canada in March/April and returning in November/December. Migrations are typically within 30 nmi of the coastline and in waters less than 50 m deep. Although this migratory pattern is well known, winter distribution for most of the population—the non-calving portion—is poorly known, as many whales are not observed on the calving grounds. It is unknown where these animals spend the winter, although they may occur further offshore or may remain on foraging grounds during winter (Morano
Humpback whales are a cosmopolitan species that migrate seasonally between warm-water (tropical or sub-tropical) breeding and calving areas in winter months and cool-water (temperate to sub-Arctic/Antarctic) feeding areas in summer months (Gendron and Urban, 1993). They tend to occupy shallow, coastal waters, although migrations are
Neither the humpback whale nor the right whale would occur within the turning basin, and only the right whale has been observed to occur as far inshore as the mouth of the St. Johns River. Therefore, the potential for interaction with these species is unlikely. When considering frequency of occurrence, size of ensonified area (less than one square kilometer during both vibratory (approximately 0.61 km
Atlantic spotted dolphins are distributed in tropical and warm temperate waters of the western North Atlantic predominantly over the continental shelf and upper slope, from southern New England through the Gulf of Mexico (Leatherwood
From recent observation reports from the Navy from previous construction activity at Naval Station Mayport, no spotted dolphins were observed. Similarly, dolphin research studies that have been conducted in the area also reported zero observed spotted dolphins in the project area (Gibson, pers. comm.). We consider the likelihood of Atlantic spotted dolphins being impacted by the construction activities to be discountable based on this information, combined with the zero estimated exposures (density: 0.005240/km
The following summarizes the population status and abundance of the remaining species.
Bottlenose dolphins are found worldwide in tropical to temperate waters and can be found in all depths from estuarine inshore to deep offshore waters. Temperature appears to limit the range of the species, either directly, or indirectly, for example, through distribution of prey. Off North American coasts, common bottlenose dolphins are found where surface water temperatures range from about 10 °C to 32 °C. In many regions, including the southeastern U.S., separate coastal and offshore populations are known. There is significant genetic, morphological, and hematological differentiation evident between the two ecotypes (
In the Mayport area, four stocks of bottlenose dolphins are currently managed, none of which are protected under the ESA. Of the four stocks—offshore, southern migratory coastal, northern Florida coastal, and Jacksonville estuarine system—only the latter three are likely to occur in the action area. Bottlenose dolphins typically occur in groups of 2-15 individuals (Shane
According to the Scott
Bottlenose dolphins are ubiquitous in coastal waters from the mid-Atlantic through the Gulf of Mexico, and therefore interact with multiple coastal fisheries, including gillnet, trawl, and trap/pot fisheries. Stock-specific total fishery-related mortality and serious injury cannot be directly estimated because of the spatial overlap among stocks of bottlenose dolphins, as well as because of unobserved fisheries. The primary known source of fishery mortality for the southern migratory stock is the mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery (Waring
The northern Florida coastal stock ventures into the St. Johns River in large numbers, but rarely moves past Naval Station Mayport. The mouth of the St. Johns River may serve as a foraging area for this stock and the Jacksonville estuarine stock (Gibson, pers. comm).
The northern Florida coastal stock is susceptible to interactions with similar fisheries as those described above for the southern migratory stock, including gillnet, trawl, and trap/pot fisheries. From 2004-08, 78 stranded dolphins were recovered in northern Florida waters, although it was not possible to determine whether there was evidence of human interaction for the majority of these (Waring
The Jacksonville estuarine system (JES) stock has been defined as separate primarily by the results of photo-identification and genetic studies. The stock range is considered to be bounded in the north by the Georgia-Florida border at Cumberland Sound, extending south to approximately Jacksonville Beach, Florida. This encompasses an area defined during a photo-identification study of bottlenose dolphin residency patterns in the area (Caldwell, 2001), and the borders are subject to change upon further study of dolphin residency patterns in estuarine waters of southern Georgia and northern/central Florida. The habitat is comprised of several large brackish rivers, including the St. Johns River, as well as tidal marshes and shallow riverine systems. Three behaviorally different communities were identified during Caldwell's (2001) study: The estuarine waters north (Northern) and south (Southern) of the St. Johns River and the coastal area, all of which differed in density, habitat fidelity and social affiliation patterns. The coastal dolphins are believed to be members of a coastal stock, however (Waring
The JES stock is susceptible to similar fisheries interactions as those described above for coastal stocks, although only trap/pot fisheries are likely to occur in estuarine waters frequented by the stock. Only one dolphin carcass bearing evidence of fisheries interaction was recovered during 2003-07 in the JES area, and an additional sixteen stranded dolphins were recovered during this time, but no determinations regarding human interactions could be made for the majority (Waring
The original, single stock of coastal dolphins recognized from 1995-2001 was listed as depleted under the MMPA as a result of a 1987-88 mortality event. That designation was retained when the single stock was split into multiple coastal stocks. However, Scott
An unusual mortality event (UME) occurred between 2013 and 2015 spanning the Atlantic coast, which impacted all stocks of bottlenose dolphins in the area. Over 1,800 dolphins stranded in this time period. The preliminary conclusion of the cause of this UME was morbillivirus. The bottlenose dolphin stocks in this area (SJR and coastal areas) may be considered vulnerable to impacts from future activities due to this recent event.
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components of the specified activity (
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance between two peaks of a sound wave; lower frequency sounds have longer wavelengths than higher frequency sounds and attenuate (decrease) more rapidly in shallower water. Amplitude is the height of the sound pressure wave or the `loudness' of a sound and is typically measured using the decibel (dB) scale. A dB is the ratio between a measured pressure (with sound) and a reference pressure (sound at a constant pressure, established by scientific standards). It is a logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude; therefore, relatively small changes in dB ratings correspond to large changes in sound pressure. When referring to sound pressure levels (SPLs; the sound force per unit area), sound is referenced in the context of underwater sound pressure to 1 microPascal (μPa). One pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of one newton exerted over an area of one square meter. The source level (SL) represents the sound level at a distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1 μPa). The received level is the sound level at the listener's position. Note that all underwater sound levels in this document are referenced to a pressure of 1 µPa and all airborne sound levels in this document are referenced to a pressure of 20 μPa.
Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the duration of an impulse. Rms is calculated by squaring all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of the average (Urick, 1983). Rms accounts for both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed through averaged units than by peak pressures.
When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in all directions away from the source (similar to ripples on the surface of a pond), except in cases where the source is directional. The compressions and decompressions associated with sound waves are detected as changes in pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as hydrophones.
Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a single source or point (Richardson
• Wind and waves: The complex interactions between wind and water surface, including processes such as breaking waves and wave-induced bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a main source of naturally occurring ambient noise for frequencies between 200 Hz and 50 kHz (Mitson, 1995). In general, ambient sound levels tend to increase with increasing wind speed and wave height. Surf noise becomes important near shore, with measurements collected at a distance of 8.5 km from shore showing an increase of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band during heavy surf conditions.
• Precipitation: Sound from rain and hail impacting the water surface can become an important component of total noise at frequencies above 500 Hz, and possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet times.
• Biological: Marine mammals can contribute significantly to ambient noise levels, as can some fish and shrimp. The frequency band for biological contributions is from approximately 12 Hz to over 100 kHz.
• Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient noise related to human activity include transportation (surface vessels and aircraft), dredging and construction, oil and gas drilling and production, seismic surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean acoustic studies. Shipping noise typically dominates the total ambient noise for frequencies between 20 and 300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz and, if higher frequency sound levels are created, they attenuate rapidly (Richardson
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at any given location and time—which comprise “ambient” or “background” sound—depends not only on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson
The underwater acoustic environment in the Mayport turning basin is likely to be dominated by noise from day-to-day port and vessel activities. The basin is sheltered from most wave noise, but is a high-use area for naval ships, tugboats, and security vessels. When underway, these sources can create noise between 20 Hz and 16 kHz (Lesage
In-water construction activities associated with the project would include impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving. The sounds produced by these activities fall into one of two general sound types: Pulsed and non-pulsed (defined in the following). The distinction between these two sound types is important because they have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing (
Pulsed sound sources (
Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses (
Impact hammers operate by repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by impact hammers is characterized by rapid rise times and high peak levels, a potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper, 2005). Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the weight of the hammer to push them into the sediment. Vibratory hammers produce significantly less sound than impact hammers. Peak SPLs may be 180 dB or greater, but are generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs generated during impact pile driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals, and exposure to sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess these potential effects, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
• Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 25 kHz (extended from 22 kHz; Watkins, 1986; Au
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked whales, and most delphinids): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
• High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and members of the genera
• Pinnipeds in water: Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 75 Hz to 100 kHz for Phocidae (true seals) and between 100 Hz and 40 kHz for Otariidae (eared seals), with the greatest sensitivity between approximately 700 Hz and 20 kHz. The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall
One cetacean species is expected to potentially be affected by the specified activity. Bottlenose dolphins are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans.
In the absence of mitigation, impacts to marine species would be expected to result from physiological and behavioral responses to both the type and strength of the acoustic signature (Viada
Given the available data, the received level of a single pulse (with no frequency weighting) might need to be approximately 186 dB re 1 μPa
The above TTS information for odontocetes is derived from studies on the bottlenose dolphin and beluga whale (
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. PTS might occur at a received sound level at least several decibels above that inducing mild TTS if the animal were exposed to strong sound pulses with rapid rise time. Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary assumption is that the PTS threshold for impulse sounds (such as pile driving pulses as received close to the source) is at least 6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis and probably greater than 6 dB (Southall
Measured source levels from impact pile driving can be as high as 214 dB rms. Although no marine mammals have been shown to experience TTS or PTS as a result of being exposed to pile driving activities, captive bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales exhibited changes in behavior when exposed to strong pulsed sounds (Finneran
Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle changes in behavior, more conspicuous changes in activities, and displacement. Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and reactions, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day, and many other factors (Richardson
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok
Controlled experiments with captive marine mammals showed pronounced behavioral reactions, including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway
With both types of pile driving, it is likely that the onset of pile driving could result in temporary, short term changes in an animal's typical behavior and/or avoidance of the affected area. These behavioral changes may include (Richardson
The biological significance of many of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral modification could be expected to be biologically significant if the change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Significant behavioral modifications that could potentially lead to effects on growth, survival, or reproduction include:
• Drastic changes in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those thought to cause beaked whale stranding due to exposure to military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
• Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic environment; and
• Cessation of feeding or social interaction.
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound depends on both external factors (characteristics of sound sources and their paths) and the specific characteristics of the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is difficult to predict (Southall
Natural and artificial sounds can disrupt behavior by masking, or interfering with, a marine mammal's ability to hear other sounds. Masking occurs when the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another coincident sound at similar frequencies and at similar or higher levels. Chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-intensity, sound could cause masking at particular frequencies for marine mammals, which utilize sound for vital biological functions. Masking can interfere with detection of acoustic signals such as communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental sounds important to marine mammals. Therefore, under certain circumstances, marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment are being severely masked could also be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in survival and reproduction. If the coincident (masking) sound were man-made, it could be potentially harassing if it disrupted hearing-related behavior. It is important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not considered a physiological effect, but rather a potential behavioral effect.
The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in determining any potential behavioral impacts. Because sound generated from in-water pile driving is mostly concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have less effect on high frequency echolocation sounds made by porpoises. However, lower frequency man-made sounds are more likely to affect detection of communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as surf and prey sound. It may also affect communication signals when they occur near the sound band and thus reduce the communication space of animals (
Masking has the potential to impact species at the population or community levels as well as at individual levels. Masking affects both senders and receivers of the signals and can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent research suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, and that most of these increases are from distant shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, such as those from vessel traffic, pile driving, and dredging activities, contribute to the elevated ambient sound levels, thus intensifying masking.
The most intense underwater sounds in the proposed action are those produced by impact pile driving. Given that the energy distribution of pile driving covers a broad frequency spectrum, sound from these sources would likely be within the audible range of marine mammals present in the project area. Impact pile driving activity is relatively short-term, with rapid pulses occurring for approximately fifteen minutes per pile. The probability for impact pile driving resulting from this proposed action masking acoustic signals important to the behavior and survival of marine mammal species is likely to be negligible. Vibratory pile driving is also relatively short-term, with rapid oscillations occurring for approximately one and a half hours per pile. It is possible that vibratory pile driving resulting from this proposed action may mask acoustic signals important to the behavior and survival of marine mammal species, but the
The proposed activities at NSM would not result in permanent impacts to habitats used directly by marine mammals, but may have potential short-term impacts to food sources such as forage fish and may affect acoustic habitat (see masking discussion above). There are no known foraging hotspots or other ocean bottom structure of significant biological importance to marine mammals present in the marine waters of the project area; however the surrounding areas may be foraging habitat for the dolphins. Therefore, the main impact issue associated with the proposed activity would be temporarily elevated sound levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals, as discussed previously in this document. The most likely impact to marine mammal habitat occurs from pile driving effects on likely marine mammal prey (
Construction activities may produce both pulsed (
The area likely impacted by the project is relatively small compared to the available habitat in nearshore and estuarine waters in the region. Avoidance by potential prey (
In summary, given the short daily duration of sound associated with individual pile driving events and the relatively small areas being affected, pile driving activities associated with the proposed action are not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on any fish habitat, or populations of fish species. Therefore, pile driving is not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on marine mammal foraging habitat at the project area. The Mayport turning basin itself is a man-made basin with significant levels of industrial activity and regular dredging, and is unlikely to harbor significant amounts of forage fish. Thus, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses.
Measurements from similar pile driving events were coupled with practical spreading loss to estimate zones of influence (ZOI; see Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment); these values were used to develop mitigation measures for pile driving activities at NSM. The ZOIs effectively represent the mitigation zone that would be established around each pile to prevent Level A harassment to marine mammals, while providing estimates of the areas within which Level B harassment might occur. In addition to the specific measures described later in this section, the Navy would conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and Navy staff prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
The following measures would apply to the Navy's mitigation through shutdown and disturbance zones:
In order to document observed incidents of harassment, monitors record all marine mammal observations, regardless of location. The observer's location, as well as the location of the pile being driven, is known from a GPS. The location of the animal is estimated as a distance from the observer, which is then compared to the location from the pile. It may then be estimated whether the animal was exposed to sound levels constituting incidental harassment on the basis of predicted distances to relevant thresholds in post-processing of observational and acoustic data, and a precise accounting of observed incidences of harassment created. This information may then be used to extrapolate observed takes to reach an approximate understanding of actual total takes.
The following additional measures apply to visual monitoring:
(1) Monitoring will be conducted by qualified observers, who will be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. Qualified observers are typically trained biologists, with the following minimum qualifications:
• Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
• Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic experience);
• Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
• Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine mammal behavior; and
• Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
(2) Prior to the start of pile driving activity, the shutdown zone will be monitored for fifteen minutes to ensure that it is clear of marine mammals. Pile driving will only commence once observers have declared the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals; animals will be allowed to remain in the shutdown zone (
(3) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during the course of pile driving operations, activity will be halted and delayed until either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or fifteen minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal. Monitoring will be conducted throughout the time required to drive a pile.
The use of a soft start procedure is believed to provide additional protection to marine mammals by warning or providing a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer operating at full capacity, and typically involves a requirement to initiate sound from the hammer at reduced energy followed by a waiting period. This procedure is repeated two additional times. It is difficult to specify the reduction in energy for any given hammer because of variation across drivers and, for impact hammers, the actual number of strikes at reduced energy will vary because operating the hammer at less than full power results in “bouncing” of the hammer as it strikes the pile, resulting in multiple “strikes.” For impact driving, we require an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at reduced energy, followed by a thirty-second waiting period, then two subsequent three strike sets. Soft start will be required at the beginning of each day's impact pile driving work and at any time following a cessation of impact pile driving of thirty minutes or longer.
We have carefully evaluated the Navy's proposed mitigation measures and considered their effectiveness in past implementation to preliminarily determine whether they are likely to effect the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals, (2) the proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and (3) the practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) we prescribe should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of
(1) Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
(2) A reduction in the number (total number or number at biologically important time or location) of individual marine mammals exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment only).
(3) A reduction in the number (total number or number at biologically important time or location) of times any individual marine mammal would be exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment only).
(4) A reduction in the intensity of exposure to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the severity of behavioral harassment only).
(5) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying particular attention to the prey base, blockage or limitation of passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.
(6) For monitoring directly related to mitigation, an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the Navy's proposed measures, as well as any other potential measures that may be relevant to the specified activity, we have preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for incidental take authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.
Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should improve our understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species in action area (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual responses to acute stressors, or impacts of chronic exposures (behavioral or physiological).
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) Population, species, or stock.
• Effects on marine mammal habitat and resultant impacts to marine mammals.
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
The Navy's proposed monitoring and reporting is also described in their Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, on the Internet at
The Navy will collect sighting data and behavioral responses to construction for marine mammal species observed in the region of activity during the period of activity. All observers (MMOs) will be trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring. The Navy will monitor the shutdown zone and disturbance zone before, during, and after pile driving, with observers located at the best practicable vantage points. Based on our requirements, the Navy would implement the following procedures for pile driving:
• MMOs would be located at the best vantage point(s) in order to properly see the entire shutdown zone and as much of the disturbance zone as possible.
• During all observation periods, observers will use binoculars and the naked eye to search continuously for marine mammals.
• If the shutdown zones are obscured by fog or poor lighting conditions, pile driving at that location will not be initiated until that zone is visible. Should such conditions arise while impact driving is underway, the activity would be halted.
• The shutdown and disturbance zones around the pile will be monitored for the presence of marine mammals before, during, and after any pile driving or removal activity.
Individuals implementing the monitoring protocol will assess its effectiveness using an adaptive approach. The monitoring biologists will use their best professional judgment throughout implementation and seek improvements to these methods when deemed appropriate. Any modifications to protocol will be coordinated between NMFS and the Navy.
We require that observers use approved data forms. Among other pieces of information, the Navy will record detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, the Navy will attempt to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidences of take. We require that, at a minimum, the following information be collected on the sighting forms:
• Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
• Construction activities occurring during each observation period;
• Weather parameters (
• Water conditions (
• Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals;
• Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of travel, and if possible, the correlation to SPLs;
• Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
• Description of implementation of mitigation measures (
• Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
• Other human activity in the area.
A draft report would be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of the completion
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “. . . any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].”
All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment resulting from vibratory and impact pile driving and involving temporary changes in behavior. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the possibility of injurious or lethal takes such that take by Level A harassment, serious injury, or mortality is considered discountable. However, it is unlikely that injurious or lethal takes would occur even in the absence of the planned mitigation and monitoring measures.
If a marine mammal responds to a stimulus by changing its behavior (
The turning basin is not considered important habitat for marine mammals, as it is a man-made, semi-enclosed basin with frequent industrial activity and regular maintenance dredging. The surrounding waters may be an important foraging habitat for the dolphins; however the small area of ensonification does not extend outside of the turning basin and into this foraging habitat (see Figure 6-1 in the Navy's application). Therefore, behavioral disturbances that could result from anthropogenic sound associated with these activities are expected to affect only a relatively small number of individual marine mammals that may venture near the turning basin, although those effects could be recurring over the life of the project if the same individuals remain in the project vicinity. The Navy has requested authorization for the incidental taking of small numbers of bottlenose dolphins in the Mayport turning basin that may result from pile driving during construction activities associated with the project described previously in this document.
In order to estimate the potential incidents of take that may occur incidental to the specified activity, we must first estimate the extent of the sound field that may be produced by the activity and then consider in combination with information about marine mammal density or abundance in the project area. We first provide information on applicable sound thresholds for determining effects to marine mammals before describing the information used in estimating the sound fields, the available marine mammal density or abundance information, and the method of estimating potential incidents of take.
We use generic sound exposure thresholds to determine when an activity that produces sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal such that a take by harassment might occur. To date, no studies have been conducted that explicitly examine impacts to marine mammals from pile driving sounds or from which empirical sound thresholds have been established. These thresholds (Table 2) are used to estimate when harassment may occur (
This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or absence of reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water structures and sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading occurs in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (10*log[range]). A practical spreading value of fifteen is often used under conditions, such as at the NSM turning basin, where water increases with depth as the receiver moves away from the shoreline, resulting in an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions. Practical spreading loss (4.5 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance) is assumed here.
In order to determine reasonable SPLs and their associated effects on marine mammals that are likely to result from impact pile driving at NSM, we considered existing measurements from similar physical environments (sandy sediments and water depths greater than 15 ft) for impact and vibratory driving of 24-in steel pipe piles and for steel sheet piles. These studies, largely conducted by the Washington State Department of Transportation and the California Department of Transportation, show typical values around 160 dB for vibratory driving of 24-in pipe piles and sheet piles, and around 185-195 dB for impact driving of similar pipe piles (all measured at 10 m;
The Mayport turning basin does not represent open water, or free field, conditions. Therefore, sounds would attenuate as per the confines of the basin, and may only reach the full estimated distances to the harassment thresholds via the narrow, east-facing entrance channel. Distances shown in Table 3 are estimated for free-field conditions, but areas are calculated per the actual conditions of the action area. See Figures 6-1 and 6-2 of the Navy's application for a depiction of areas in which each underwater sound threshold is predicted to occur at the project area due to pile driving.
For all species, the best scientific information available was considered for use in the marine mammal take assessment calculations. Density for bottlenose dolphins is derived from site-specific surveys conducted by the Navy (see Appendix C of the Navy's application for more information); it is not currently possible to identify observed individuals to stock. This survey effort consists of 24 half-day observation periods covering mornings and afternoons during four seasons (December 10-13, 2012, March 4-7, 2013, June 3-6, 2013, and September 9-12, 2013). During each observation period, two observers (a primary observer at an elevated observation point and a secondary observer at ground level) monitored for the presence of marine mammals in the turning basin (0.712 km
Most observations of bottlenose dolphins were of individuals or pairs, although larger groups were
The following assumptions are made when estimating potential incidents of take:
• All marine mammal individuals potentially available are assumed to be present within the relevant area, and thus incidentally taken;
• An individual can only be taken once during a 24-h period; and,
• There will be 110 total days of vibratory driving (seventy three days in phase I and thirty seven days in phase II) and twenty days of impact pile driving.
• Exposures to sound levels at or above the relevant thresholds equate to take, as defined by the MMPA.
The estimation of marine mammal takes typically uses the following calculation:
The ZOI impact area is estimated using the relevant distances in Table 3, taking into consideration the possible affected area with attenuation due to the constraints of the basin. Because the basin restricts sound from propagating outward, with the exception of the east-facing entrance channel, the radial distances to thresholds are not generally reached.
There are a number of reasons why estimates of potential incidents of take may be conservative, assuming that available density or abundance estimates and estimated ZOI areas are accurate. We assume, in the absence of information supporting a more refined conclusion, that the output of the calculation represents the number of individuals that may be taken by the specified activity. In fact, in the context of stationary activities such as pile driving and in areas where resident animals may be present, this number more realistically represents the number of incidents of take that may accrue to a smaller number of individuals. While pile driving can occur any day throughout the in-water work window, and the analysis is conducted on a per day basis, only a fraction of that time (typically a matter of hours on any given day) is actually spent pile driving. The potential effectiveness of mitigation measures in reducing the number of takes is typically not quantified in the take estimation process. For these reasons, these take estimates may be conservative.
The quantitative exercise described above indicates that no incidents of Level A harassment would be expected, independent of the implementation of required mitigation measures. See Table 4 for total estimated incidents of take.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
Pile driving activities associated with the wharf construction project, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) only, from underwater sounds generated
No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated given the nature of the activities and measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for these outcomes is minimized through the construction method and the implementation of the planned mitigation measures. Specifically, vibratory hammers will be the primary method of installation (impact driving is included only as a contingency and is not expected to be required), and this activity does not have the potential to cause injury to marine mammals due to the relatively low source levels produced (less than 180 dB) and the lack of potentially injurious source characteristics. Impact pile driving produces short, sharp pulses with higher peak levels and much sharper rise time to reach those peaks. If impact driving is necessary, implementation of soft start and shutdown zones significantly reduces any possibility of injury. Given sufficient “notice” through use of soft start (for impact driving), marine mammals are expected to move away from a sound source that is annoying prior to it becoming potentially injurious. Environmental conditions in the confined and protected Mayport turning basin mean that marine mammal detection ability by trained observers is high, enabling a high rate of success in implementation of shutdowns to avoid injury.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) (
In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the following factors: (1) The possibility of injury, serious injury, or mortality may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) the anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior; (3) the absence of any significant habitat within the project area, including known areas or features of special significance for foraging or reproduction; (4) the presumed efficacy of the proposed mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level of least practicable impact. In addition, these stocks are not listed under the ESA, although coastal bottlenose dolphins are designated as depleted under the MMPA. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activity will have only short-term effects on individuals. The specified activity is not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-level impacts.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, we preliminarily find that the total marine mammal take from the Navy's wharf construction activities will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As described previously, of the 370 incidents of behavioral harassment predicted to occur for bottlenose dolphin, we have no information allowing us to parse those predicted incidents amongst the three stocks of bottlenose dolphin that may occur in the project area. Therefore, we assessed the total number of predicted incidents of take against the best abundance estimate for each stock, as though the total would occur for the stock in question. For one of the bottlenose dolphin stocks, the total predicted number of incidents of take authorized would be considered small—approximately four percent for the southern migratory stock- even if each estimated taking occurred to a new individual. This is an extremely unlikely scenario as, for bottlenose dolphins in estuarine and nearshore waters, there is likely to be some overlap in individuals present day-to-day.
The total number of authorized takes proposed for bottlenose dolphins, if assumed to accrue solely to new individuals of the JES or northern Florida coastal stocks, is higher relative to the total stock abundance, which is currently considered unknown for the JES stock and is 1,219 for the northern Florida coastal stock. However, these numbers represent the estimated incidents of take, not the number of individuals taken. That is, it is highly likely that a relatively small subset of these bottlenose dolphins would be harassed by project activities.
JES bottlenose dolphins range from Cumberland Sound at the Georgia-Florida border south to approximately Palm Coast, Florida, an area spanning over 120 linear km of coastline and including habitat consisting of complex inshore and estuarine waterways. JES dolphins, divided by Caldwell (2001) into Northern and Southern groups, show strong site fidelity and, although members of both groups have been observed outside their preferred areas, it is likely that the majority of JES dolphins would not occur within waters ensonified by project activities.
In the western North Atlantic, the Northern Florida Coastal Stock is present in coastal Atlantic waters from the Georgia/Florida border south to 29.4° N. (Waring
In summary, JES dolphins are known to form two groups and exhibit strong site fidelity (
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, we preliminarily find that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Therefore, we have determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
No marine mammal species listed under the ESA are expected to be affected by these activities. Therefore, we have determined that section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required.
The Navy has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA; Environmental Assessment for the Wharf Bravo Recapitalization at Naval Station Mayport, Jacksonville, FL) in accordance with NEPA and the regulations published by the Council on Environmental Quality. We have posted it on the NMFS Web site (see
As a result of these preliminary determinations, we propose to authorize the take of marine mammals incidental to the Navy's Bravo wharf recapitalization project, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. Specific language from the proposed IHA is provided next.
This section contains a draft of the IHA. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
1. This Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) is valid for one year from the date of issuance.
2. This IHA is valid only for pile driving activities associated with the Bravo Wharf Recapitalization Project at Naval Station Mayport, Florida.
3. General Conditions
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of the Navy, its designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of this IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking is the bottlenose dolphin (
(c) The taking, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the species listed in condition 3(b). See Table 1 for numbers of take authorized.
(d) The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or death of the species listed in condition 3(b) of the Authorization or any taking of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(e) The Navy shall conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and Navy staff prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
4. Mitigation Measures
The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the following mitigation measures:
(a) For all pile driving, the Navy shall implement a minimum shutdown zone of 15 m radius around the pile. If a marine mammal comes within or approaches the shutdown zone, such operations shall cease. For impact driving of steel piles, the minimum shutdown zone shall be of 40 m radius.
(b) The Navy shall establish monitoring locations as described below. Please also refer to the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan (see
i. For all pile driving activities, a minimum of two observers shall be deployed, with one positioned to achieve optimal monitoring of the shutdown zone and the second positioned to achieve optimal monitoring of surrounding waters of the turning basin, the entrance to that basin, and portions of the Atlantic Ocean. If practicable, the second observer should be deployed to an elevated position, preferably opposite Bravo Wharf and with clear sight lines to the wharf and out the entrance channel.
ii. These observers shall record all observations of marine mammals, regardless of distance from the pile being driven, as well as behavior and potential behavioral reactions of the animals. Observations within the turning basin shall be distinguished from those in the entrance channel and nearshore waters of the Atlantic Ocean.
iii. All observers shall be equipped for communication of marine mammal observations amongst themselves and to other relevant personnel (
(c) Monitoring shall take place from fifteen minutes prior to initiation of pile driving activity through thirty minutes post-completion of pile driving activity. Pre-activity monitoring shall be conducted for fifteen minutes to ensure that the shutdown zone is clear of marine mammals, and pile driving may commence when observers have declared the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals. In the event of a delay or shutdown of activity resulting from marine mammals in the shutdown zone, animals shall be allowed to remain in the shutdown zone (
(d) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone, all pile driving activities at that location shall be halted. If pile driving is halted or delayed due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity may not commence or resume until either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or fifteen minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal.
(e) Monitoring shall be conducted by qualified observers, as described in the Monitoring Plan. Trained observers shall be placed from the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown or delay procedures when applicable through communication with the equipment operator. Observer training must be provided prior to project start and in accordance with the monitoring plan, and shall include instruction on species identification (sufficient to distinguish the species listed in 3(b)), description and categorization of observed behaviors and interpretation of behaviors that may be construed as being reactions to the specified activity, proper completion of data forms, and other basic components of biological monitoring, including tracking of observed animals or groups of animals such that repeat sound exposures may be attributed to individuals (to the extent possible).
(f) The Navy shall use soft start techniques recommended by NMFS for impact pile driving. Soft start requires contractors to provide an initial set of strikes at reduced energy, followed by a thirty-second waiting period, then two subsequent reduced energy strike sets. Soft start shall be implemented at the start of each day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of impact pile driving for a period of thirty minutes or longer.
(g) Pile driving shall only be conducted during daylight hours.
5. Monitoring
The holder of this Authorization is required to conduct marine mammal monitoring during pile driving activity. Marine mammal monitoring and reporting shall be conducted in accordance with the Monitoring Plan.
(a) The Navy shall collect sighting data and behavioral responses to pile driving for marine mammal species observed in the region of activity during the period of activity. All observers shall be trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors, and shall have no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring.
(b) For all marine mammal monitoring, the information shall be recorded as described in the Monitoring Plan.
6. Reporting
The holder of this Authorization is required to:
(a) Submit a draft report on all monitoring conducted under the IHA within ninety days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring, or sixty days prior to the issuance of any subsequent IHA for projects at NSM, whichever comes first. A final report shall be prepared and submitted within thirty days following resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS. This report must contain the informational elements described in the Monitoring Plan, at minimum (see
i. Detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any.
ii. Description of attempts to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidents of take, such as ability to track groups or individuals.
iii. An estimated total take estimate extrapolated from the number of marine mammals observed during the course of construction activities, if necessary.
(b) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:
i. In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, Navy shall immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Southeast Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The report must include the following information:
A. Time and date of the incident;
B. Description of the incident;
C. Environmental conditions (
D. Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
E. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
F. Fate of the animal(s); and
G. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with Navy to determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Navy may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
ii. In the event that Navy discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
The report must include the same information identified in 6(b)(i) of this IHA. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with Navy to determine whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to the activities are appropriate.
iii. In the event that Navy discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
7. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
We request comment on our analyses, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHAs for Navy's wharf construction activities. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on Navy's request for an MMPA authorization.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for Letters of Authorization; request for comments and information.
NMFS' Office of Protected Resources has received a request from the NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) for authorization to take small numbers of marine mammals incidental to conducting fisheries research, over the course of five years from the date of issuance. Pursuant to regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is announcing receipt of the PIFSC's request for the development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals. NMFS invites the public to provide information, suggestions, and comments on the PIFSC's application and request.
Comments and information must be received no later than January 6, 2016.
Comments on the applications should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to
Ben Laws, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
An electronic copy of the PIFSC's application may be obtained by visiting the Internet at:
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Incidental taking shall be allowed if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) affected and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses, and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].”
On November 30, 2015, NMFS received an adequate and complete application from the PIFSC requesting authorization for take of marine mammals incidental to fisheries research conducted by the PIFSC. The requested regulations would be valid for five years from the date of issuance. The PIFSC plans to conduct fisheries research surveys in multiple geographic regions within the Pacific Ocean, including Hawaii, Samoa, the Marianas, and the western and central Pacific broadly (including the Pacific Remote Island Area). It is possible that marine mammals may interact with fishing gear (
The Federal Government has a responsibility to conserve and protect living marine resources in U.S. federal waters and has also entered into a number of international agreements and treaties related to the management of living marine resources in international waters outside the United States. NOAA has the primary responsibility for managing marine fin and shellfish species and their habitats, with that
In order to direct and coordinate the collection of scientific information needed to make informed management decisions, Congress created six Regional Fisheries Science Centers, each a distinct organizational entity and the scientific focal point within NMFS for region-based federal fisheries-related research. This research is aimed at monitoring fish stock recruitment, abundance, survival and biological rates, geographic distribution of species and stocks, ecosystem process changes, and marine ecological research. The PIFSC is the research arm of NMFS in the Pacific Islands.
Research is aimed at monitoring fish stock recruitment, survival and biological rates, abundance and geographic distribution of species and stocks, and providing other scientific information needed to improve our understanding of complex marine ecological processes. The PIFSC proposes to administer and conduct these survey programs over the five-year period.
Interested persons may submit information, suggestions, and comments concerning the PIFSC's request (see
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Request for public comments concerning a request for modification of the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement (USMFTA) rules of origin for 100% rayon woven fabric.
On November 16, 2015, the Government of the United States received a request from American Eagle Outfitters (AEO) to initiate consultations with the Government of Morocco under Article 4.3.3 of the USMFTA. AEO is requesting that the United States and Morocco consider revising the rules of origin for women's and girls' woven garments to address availability of supply of 100% rayon woven fabric in the territories of the Parties. The President may proclaim a modification to the USMFTA rules of origin for textile and apparel products after reaching an agreement with the Government of Morocco on the modification. CITA hereby solicits public comments on this request, in particular with regard to whether 100% rayon woven fabric of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 5408 can be supplied by the U.S. domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Comments must be submitted by January 6, 2016 to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, Room 3001, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230.
Maria D'Andrea, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-1550.
Section 203 (j)(2)(B)(i) of the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 3805 note) (USMFTA Implementation Act); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
Background: Under the USMFTA, except as otherwise provided in the USMFTA, the Parties are required to progressively eliminate customs duties on originating goods in accordance with their schedules.
The USMFTA Implementation Act provides the President with the authority to proclaim as part of the HTSUS, modifications to the USMFTA rules of origin set out in Annex 4-A of the USMFTA as are necessary to implement the USMFTA after complying with the consultation and layover requirements of Section 104 of the USMFTA Implementation Act.
On November 16, 2015, the Government of the United States received a request from AEO, alleging that 100% rayon woven fabric cannot be supplied by the domestic or Moroccan industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting that the United States consider whether the USMFTA rule of origin for women's and girls' woven garments, classified under HTSUS chapter 62, should be modified to allow the use of non-U.S. and non-Moroccan 100% woven rayon fabric classified in subheading 5408 of the HTSUS.
CITA is soliciting public comments regarding this request, particularly with respect to whether 100% rayon woven fabric described above can be supplied by the U.S. domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Comments must be received no later than January 6, 2016. Interested persons are invited to submit six copies of such comments or information to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, Room 3001, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
CITA will protect any business confidential information that is marked business confidential from disclosure to the full extent permitted by law. CITA will make available to the public non-confidential versions of the request and non-confidential versions of any public comments received with respect to a request in room 3001 in the Herbert Hoover Building, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Persons submitting comments on a request are encouraged to include a non-
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Request for public comments concerning a request for modification of the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement (USMFTA) rules of origin for certain printed and piece-dyed warp knit fabrics of polyester or nylon fibers.
On November 16, 2015, the Government of the United States received a request from Swimsuit Commission Corporation (SCC) to initiate consultations with the Government of Morocco under Article 4.3.3 of the USMFTA. SCC is requesting that the United States and Morocco consider revising the rules of origin for certain women's and girls' swimwear to address availability of supply of certain printed and piece-dyed warp knit fabrics of polyester or nylon fibers in the territories of the Parties. The President may proclaim a modification to the USMFTA rules of origin for textile and apparel products after reaching an agreement with the Government of Morocco on the modification. CITA hereby solicits public comments on this request, in particular with regard to whether certain printed and piece-dyed warp knit fabrics of polyester or nylon fibers classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 6004.10 containing between 3 percent and 41 percent elastomeric yarns, in which the elastomeric yarns were engineered for chlorine resistance, can be supplied by the U.S. domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Comments must be submitted by January 6, 2016 to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, Room 3001, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230.
Maria D'Andrea, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-1550.
Under the USMFTA, except as otherwise provided in the USMFTA, the Parties are required to progressively eliminate customs duties on originating goods in accordance with their schedules.
The USMFTA Implementation Act provides the President with the authority to proclaim as part of the HTSUS, modifications to the USMFTA rules of origin set out in Annex 4-A of the USMFTA as are necessary to implement the USMFTA after complying with the consultation and layover requirements of Section 104 of the USMFTA Implementation Act.
On November 16, 2015, the Government of the United States received a request from SCC, alleging that certain printed and piece-dyed warp knit fabrics of polyester or nylon fibers classified under HTSUS subheading 6004.10 containing between 3 percent and 41 percent elastomeric yarns, in which the elastomeric yarns were engineered for chlorine resistance, cannot be supplied by the domestic or Moroccan industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting that the United States consider whether the USMFTA rule of origin for certain women's and girls' swimwear, classified under HTSUS subheading 6112.41, should be modified to allow the use of certain non-U.S. and non-Moroccan printed and piece-dyed warp knit fabrics of polyester or nylon fiber, classified under HTSUS subheading 6004.10 containing between 3 percent and 41 percent elastomeric yarns, in which the elastomeric yarns are engineered for chlorine resistance. CITA is soliciting public comments regarding this request, particularly with respect to whether certain printed and piece-dyed warp knit fabrics of polyester or nylon fibers described above can be supplied by the U.S. domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Comments must be received no later than January 6, 2016. Interested persons are invited to submit six copies of such comments or information to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, Room 3001, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
CITA will protect any business confidential information that is marked business confidential from disclosure to the full extent permitted by law. CITA will make available to the public non-confidential versions of the request and non-confidential versions of any public comments received with respect to a request in room 3001 in the Herbert Hoover Building, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Persons submitting comments on a request are encouraged to include a non-confidential version and a non-confidential summary.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) is requesting
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before February 5, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
Notice of Availability (NOA) Record of Decision (ROD).
On November 18, 2015, the United States Air Force signed the ROD for the Gulf Regional Airspace Strategic Iniitative, Landscape Initiative Eglin Air Force Base, Florida Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This ROD states the Air Force decision is to select Subalternative 1. The decision means that the Air Force will request a more limited set of specific training and emitter activities from its GRASI partner agencies. The selection of Subalternative 1 reduces the amount of training, frequencies, and geographic extent of training that will be requested of partner organizations to reduce the potential for recreational conflicts identified by the public and the potential for environmental impacts. Training and emitter activities, if approved by GRASI GLI partners, would occur in Blackwater River and Tate's Hell State Forests and other select locations in Northwest Florida.
The decision was based on matters discussed in the Final EIS; inputs from the public, Native American tribes, and Federal, State and local units of government, and regulatory agencies; and other relevant factors. The Final EIS was made available to the public on June 5, 2015, 2015, through a NOA in the
Mike Akerman, AFCEC/CZN 2261 Hughes Ave., Ste. 155, JBSA Lackland, TX 78236, (210) 925-2741.
Department of the Air Force.
Notification of extension of public comment period.
The U.S. Air Force is issuing this notice to advise the public of an extension to the public comment period on the revised draft Environmental Impact Statement. The initial Notice of Availability was published in the
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 6, 2016.
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Mr. Stuart Levenbach, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
Notice of closed meeting.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's (Board) regulations implementing the Government in the Sunshine Act, notice is hereby given of the Board's closed meeting described below.
10:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m., December 11, 2015.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Boardroom, Washington, DC 20004.
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.
The meeting will be closed to the public. No participation from the public will be considered during the meeting.
Closed. During the closed meeting, the Board Members will discuss issues dealing with potential Recommendations to the Secretary of Energy. The Board is invoking the exemption to close a meeting described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3) and 10 CFR 1704.4(c). The Board has determined that it is necessary to close the meeting since conducting an open meeting is likely to disclose matters that are specifically exempted from disclosure by statute. In this case, the deliberations will pertain to potential Board Recommendations which, under 42 U.S.C. 2286d(b) and (h)(3), may not be made publicly available until after they have been received by the Secretary of Energy or the President, respectively.
The meeting will proceed in accordance with the closed meeting agenda which is posted on the Board's public Web site at
Department of Education (ED), Federal Student Aid (FSA).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 5, 2016.
To access and review all the documents related to the information
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
This request is for an extension of the current record-keeping requirements contained in the regulations at 34 CFR 668.232 and 668.233, related to the administrative requirement of the financial assistance for students with intellectual disabilities program.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate 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 on November 19, 2015 Delfin LNG LLC (Delfin LNG), 1100 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in Docket No. CP15-490-001, an amendment to its May 8, 2015 application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization to reactivate, construct, own, operate and maintain certain pipeline and compression facilities that comprise the onshore portion of Delfin LNG's proposed Deepwater Port (DWP), an offshore liquefied natural gas facility located off the coast of Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico. The Amendment increases the amount of compression and capacity previously proposed, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to Daniel P. Werner, Delfin LNG LLC, 1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 3550, Houston, Texas 77002; phone: 346-240-2574, or J. Patrick Nevins, Hogan Lovells US LLP, 555 Thirteenth Street NW., Washington, DC 20004; phone: 202-637-6441.
Delfin LNG's onshore facilities will connect with the DWP facilities that are subject to jurisdiction of the Maritime Authority (MARAD) and the United States Coast Guard (USCG). Additionally, as part of Delfin LNG's DWP, Delfin LNG proposes to utilize a segment of pipeline abandoned by High Island Offshore System, LLC (HIOS) that extends from the terminus of the UTOS pipeline offshore. HIOS filed to abandon certain pipeline facilities on November 19, 2015 in Docket No. CP16-20-000.
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 commenter's 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 commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, 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 ill 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
Take notice that during the month of October 2015, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meeting related to the transmission planning activities of the South Carolina Regional Planning (SCRTP) Stakeholder Group.
The above-referenced meeting will be held at:
The meeting is open to the public.
For more information, contact Mike Lee, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8658 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:
Description: Petition of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation for Approval of Amendments to Exhibit B to the Delegation Agreement with Southwest Power Pool, Inc.—Amendments to Southwest Power Pool, Inc.'s Bylaws.
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 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of its staff may attend the above meeting of the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC). Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.
The meeting will be held on December 10, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. in the Main Hearing Room at the ICC's Chicago office, 160 North LaSalle, Suite C-800, Chicago, IL 60601.
The discussions may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
Docket No. ER11-4081,
Docket No. EL12-54,
Docket No. ER13-535,
Docket No. ER13-2108,
Docket No. ER14-504,
Docket No. ER14-822,
Docket Nos. ER14-1461 and EL14-48,
Docket No. ER14-2940,
Docket No. ER15-135,
Docket Nos. ER15-623
Docket No. EL14-20,
Docket Nos. EL14-94 and EL14-36,
Docket No. EL14-55,
Docket No. EL15-41,
Docket No. EL15-46,
Docket No. EL15-80,
Docket No. EL15-83,
Docket No. EL15-70,
Docket No. EL15-71,
Docket No. EL15-72,
Docket No. EL15-82,
The meeting is open to the public.
For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-5937 or
As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued on November 13, 2015, Commission staff will hold a technical conference on Tuesday, December 8, 2015, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. to discuss issues relating to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Collection of Connected Entity Data from Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators (NOPR) that the Commission issued on September 17, 2015. The agenda for this conference is attached. One or more of the Commissioners may attend the conference. All interested persons are invited to attend.
As noted in the initial Notice, staff will be accepting written questions related to the NOPR prior to technical conference. Any questions should be emailed to
The technical conference will be webcast, but will not be transcribed. The free webcast will allow persons to listen to the technical conference, but not participate. Anyone with internet access who wants to listen to the conference can do so by navigating to the Calendar of Events at
The conference is open to the public. Pre-registration through the Commission's Web site (
For more information about this technical conference, please contact Kathryn Kuhlen, 202-502-6855,
Take notice that on November 19, 2015, High Island Offshore System, L.L.C. (HIOS), 919 Milam, Suite 2100, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in Docket No. CP16-20-000, an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act and part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization to abandon certain offshore facilities in the Gulf of Mexico, including its 66-mile, 42-inch-diameter mainline, a 42-inch pig launcher at High Island Block 264 and its platform at West Cameron Block 167 (HIOS Repurposed Facilities), all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to
In a related docket, Delfin LNG LLC (Delfin LNG) proposes in Docket No. CP15-490-000, as amended, to reactive, construct and operate certain onshore facilities as part of its Deepwater Port project. Delfin LNG proposes to utilize the HIOS Repurposed Facilities as a part of its proposed Deepwater Port project for the export of liquefied natural gas. Delfin LNG's onshore facilities will connect with the Deepwater Port facilities that are subject to jurisdiction of the Maritime Authority (MARAD) and the United States Coast Guard (USCG).
Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to William S. Goloway, Vice President, High Island Offshore System, L.L.C., 919 Milam, Suite 2100, Houston, Texas 77002, or call (832) 280-3112, or via eMail:
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made 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 commenter's 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 commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, 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 constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
On July 6, 2015, and September 2, 2015, Lock+
Lock+
Applicant Contact: Mr. Wayne Krouse, P.O. Box 43796, Birmingham, AL 35243; (877) 556-6566, extension 709.
Energy Resources USA Inc.'s proposed project would consist of: (1) A 770-foot-long; 300-foot-wide intake area with a 40-foot-long retaining wall; (2) a 140-foot-wide; 90-foot-long reinforced concrete powerhouse containing two generating units with a total capacity of 9 megawatts; (3) a 1,000-foot-long; 220-foot-wide tailrace with a 40-foot-long retaining wall; (4) a 4.16/69 kilo-Volt (kV) substation; (5) a 3-mile-long, 69 kV transmission line. The project would have an estimated annual generation of 59,600 megawatt-hours.
Applicant Contact: Mr. Ander Gonzalez, 2655 Le June Road, Suite 804, Coral Gables, FL 33134; +34 93 252 3840.
FERC Contact: Chris Casey, (202) 502-8577.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of either application can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
On November 6, 2015, Holtwood, LLC (transferor) and BIF III Holtwood LLC (transferee) filed an application for transfer of licenses of the Wallenpaupack Hydroelectric Project No. 487 located on Wallenpaupack Creek and the Lackawaxen River in Wayne and Pike counties, Pennsylvania and the Holtwood Project No. 1881 located on the Susquehanna River in York and Lancaster counties, Pennsylvania. The projects do not occupy any federal lands.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/15/15.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on November 13, 2015, Millennium Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Millennium) One Blue Hill Plaza, Pearl River, New York 10965, filed in Docket No. CP16-17-000, an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct and operate its Valley Lateral Project to provide approximately 130,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of firm transportation service to CPV Valley, LLC to serve a new natural gas combined-cycle electric generator in the Town of Wawayanda, New York (CPV Valley Energy Center). Specifically, Millennium seeks to construct an approximately 7.8-mile, 16-inch diameter lateral pipeline from Millennium's existing mainline in Orange County, New York to the CPV Valley Energy Center, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Gary A. Kruse, One Blue Hill Plaza, Pearl River, New York 10965, phone: (845) 620-1300, or email:
On April 30, 2015, the Commission staff granted Millennium's request to utilize the Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF15-23-000 to staff activities involved in the Valley Lateral Project. Now, as of the November 13, 2015 application, the Pre-Filing Process for this project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP16-17-000, as noted in the caption of this Notice.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will 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) for this proposal. 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.
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
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
There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
Changes to Soda Development include adding a gaging station and access road below the dam within the project boundary and adjusting the project boundary to better fit shoreline buffers and conservation lands.
Changes to Grace Development include minor revisions to the project boundary around the powerhouse to reflect the recently updated U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) permit, identifying lands under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, providing a more accurate description of project lands along the Grace flowline, adding conservation lands identified in the Grace/Last Chance Site plan, expanded the project boundary to the headwater to include all lands necessary for project operations, included two additional structures necessary for maintain the operating elevation of the reservoir, and identifying private lands under the reservoir.
Changes to Oneida Development include adding an access road on BLM land, identifying two areas of private lands under the reservoir, correctly identifying lands owned by BLM or Bureau of Reclamation, and adding conservation lands managed under the revised Oneida Site Plan.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Consolidated Superfund Information Collection Request (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1487.13, OMB Control No. 2050-0179) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before February 5, 2016.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-2004-0008, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Laura Knudsen, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Assessment and Remediation Division, (5204P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-603-8861; fax number: 703-603-9102; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will collect are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Submission for OMB review and comments request.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Ex-Im Bank will use this information to fulfill the statutory mandate (Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 635) which directs Ex-Im Bank to report annually to the U.S. Congress on its competitiveness relative to the world's other major export credit agencies. As part of this report, the statutory mandate requires Ex-Im Bank to conduct an annual survey of exporters and lenders who used Export-Import Bank's support during the prior calendar year. Ex-Im Bank will use the responses to develop an analysis of the Bank's competitiveness.
The survey can be reviewed at:
Comments should be received on or before January 6, 2016.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.
Notice.
The purpose of the meetings is to discuss issues related to:
Any interested person may attend the meetings as an observer. Board discussion and reviews are open to the public. GAO Building security requires advance notice of your attendance. Please notify FASAB of your planned attendance by calling 202-512-7350 at least two days prior to the respective meeting.
Wendy Payne, Executive Director, at 202-512-7350.
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463.
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.
Notice.
The FASAB meets in Washington, DC, for two days every other month. Members are compensated based on current federal executive salaries. The member designated as chairperson of the board is typically compensated for 40 hours during each two-week pay period. Other members are typically compensated for 24 days per year. Travel expenses are reimbursed in accordance with federal travel regulations.
Responses may be submitted by email to
Please submit your resume by January 6, 2016. Additional information about the FASAB can be obtained from its Web site at
Wendy Payne, Executive Director, at 202-512-7350.
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before February 5, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
These information collection requirements are also a part of this collection and remain unchanged:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before February 5, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
These information collection requirements are also a part of this collection and remain unchanged:
47 CFR 73.404(b) states in situations where interference to other stations is anticipated or actually occurs, AM licensees may, upon notification to the Commission, reduce the power of the primary Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) sidebands by up to 6 dB. Any greater reduction of sideband power requires prior authority from the Commission via the filing of a request for special temporary authority or an informal letter request for modification of license.
47 CFR 73.404(e) states licensees (commercial and noncommercial AM and FM radio stations) must provide notification to the Commission in Washington, DC, within 10 days of commencing in-band, on channel (IBOC) digital operation. The notification must include the following information: (1) Call sign and facility identification number of the station; (2) date on which IBOC operation commenced; (3) certification that the IBOC DAB facilities conform to permissible hybrid specifications; (4) name and telephone number of a technical representative the Commission can call in the event of interference; (5) FM digital effective radiated power used and certification that the FM analog effective radiated power remains as authorized; (6) transmitter power output; if separate analog and digital transmitters are used,
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
This document provides information regarding data specifications for forward Auction 1002.
This is a summary of the
1. The
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10069 Neighborhood Community Bank, Newnan, Georgia (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Neighborhood Community Bank (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective December 1, 2015 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10489, The Community's Bank, Bridgeport, CT (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of The Community's Bank (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective December 1, 2015 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Federal Election Commission.
Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., and Thursday, December 17, 2015 at the Conclusion of the Open Meeting
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.
This Meeting Will Be Closed To The Public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109. Internal personnel rules and internal rules and practices. Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceeding, or arbitration.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of request for an extension of an information collection requirement for an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding the packing list clause.
Submit comments on or before: February 5, 2016.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-0246, Packing List Clause, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Ms. Janet Fry, Procurement Analyst, at telephone 703-605-3167 or via email at
GSAR clause 552.211-77, Packing List, requires a contractor to include a packing list or other suitable document that verifies placement of an order and identifies the items shipped. In addition to information contractors would normally include on packing lists, the identification of cardholder name, telephone number and the term “Credit Card” is required.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
The objective of the process evaluation is to describe program operations and implementation experience, such as start-up efforts, service provision to a wide array of trafficking victims, collaboration development, training, and sustainability actions. Information from the evaluation will assist federal, state, and community policymakers and funders in laying the groundwork for the refinement of program models to serve domestic victims of human trafficking, as well as evaluation strategies for future programs targeting trafficking victims.
The evaluation of domestic human trafficking demonstration projects will document and describe each site's community and organizational capacity; partnership composition and functioning; comprehensive, victim-centered services; and survivor characteristics, experiences, and outcomes. Primary data for the evaluation will be collected via qualitative interviews, including key informant interviews, case narrative interviews and client interviews. Data will be collected in two waves, during 2016 and 2017. Only the case narrative interviews will include follow up interviews. Interviews from multiple perspectives will enhance the government's understanding of strategies by which grantees can identify, engage and serve diverse populations of victims of sever forms of human trafficking.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer.
The Department specifically requests comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following public workshop entitled “Moving Forward: Collaborative Approaches to Medical Device Cybersecurity.” FDA, in collaboration with the National Health Information Sharing Analysis Center (NH-ISAC), the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Homeland Security, seek to bring together diverse stakeholders to discuss complex challenges in medical device cybersecurity that impact the medical device ecosystem. The purpose of this workshop is to highlight past collaborative efforts; increase awareness of existing maturity models (
The public workshop will be held January 20-21, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Submit either electronic or written comments on the public workshop by February 22, 2016.
The public workshop will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31 Conference Center, the Great Room, (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• 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:
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• 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.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION”. The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Suzanne Schwartz, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5428, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-6937,
Effective medical device cybersecurity to assure device safety and functionality has become more important with the increasing use of wireless, Internet- and network-connected devices, and the frequent electronic exchange of medical device-related health information. As medical devices become more connected and interoperable, the potential for exploit of device vulnerabilities, whether intentional or not, increases. Rather than impacting a single device or single system, multiple devices or an entire hospital network may be compromised. In the past, the Healthcare and Public Health (HPH) sector has been the target of many attempts at intrusion. Protecting the HPH critical infrastructure from attack by strengthening cybersecurity is a high priority for the Federal government. Cybersecurity is the subject of recent Executive Orders focused on enhancing the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure (E.O. 13636) (Ref. 1) and increasing cybersecurity information sharing (E.O. 13691) (Ref. 2). Furthermore, Presidential Policy Directive 21 tasks the Federal government to work together with the private sector in order to strengthen the security and resilience of critical infrastructure against physical and cyber threats (Ref. 3). This public workshop will bring together diverse stakeholders from the public and private sector to discuss the current state of medical device cybersecurity, including its evolution over the past 12 months. Moreover, the workshop plans to provide a vision for the desired state of medical device cybersecurity through ongoing collaboration and new partnerships over the next 12 months. Meeting participants are encouraged to formulate strategies and feasible action plans to address gaps, such as management of vulnerabilities in legacy devices. These diverse stakeholders include, but are not limited to: Medical device manufacturers; healthcare facilities and personnel (
A voluntary, risk-based framework for achieving enhanced cybersecurity was developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in collaboration with external public and private sector partners (Ref. 4). Since its release in February 2014, the “Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity” (Framework) has been leveraged by entities within the HPH sector to better manage and reduce cybersecurity risks. This workshop aims to highlight some of the ways that the Framework has been employed to better understand, manage, communicate, and mitigate medical device cybersecurity risks across the medical device total product lifecycle.
Medical device cybersecurity vulnerabilities, if exploited, may result in device malfunction, disruption of healthcare services including treatment interventions, inappropriate access to patient information, or compromised electronic health record data integrity.
Though progress is evident, key hurdles continue to impede maturation of the HPH community's cybersecurity posture. This workshop seeks to increase awareness among stakeholders and create a common understanding of potential threats and vulnerabilities, as well as to present proactive preventative measures that may be universally employed as best practices and good cyber hygiene. The workshop also aims to facilitate extensive dialogue and articulate paths forward in the critical areas of information sharing, coordinated vulnerability disclosure and vulnerability management, and the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS). Information sharing continues to be a challenge as stakeholders work to define processes to create a trusted environment. Coordinated vulnerability disclosure is an important component of information sharing. Proactively identifying, assessing, and managing medical device vulnerabilities before they are exploited is one way to protect against potential patient harm. Vulnerabilities may be identified by the device manufacturer as well as by external entities such as healthcare facilities, cybersecurity researchers, and other sectors of critical infrastructure. As described in International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission 29147:2014, “Coordinated disclosure, also known as
One of the tools that manufacturers or healthcare facilities may use to assess and manage the impact of vulnerability is CVSS. CVSS is a risk assessment tool that provides an open and standardized method for rating information technology vulnerabilities. However, incorporating CVSS into medical device vulnerability assessments has proven to be a challenge in that it does not directly incorporate patient risk and public health impact factors. This workshop encourages robust dialogue on how CVSS might be adapted for medical devices and how considerations of the use environment might be incorporated in a more standardized manner into medical device CVSS scores.
The public workshop sessions are designed to incorporate the following general themes:
• Envisioning a roadmap for coordinated vulnerability disclosure and vulnerability management as part of the broader effort to create a trusted environment for information sharing.
○ How might the stakeholder community create incentives to encourage stakeholder participation?
○ What do individual stakeholders need to understand and be aware of regarding coordinated disclosure?
○ What current tools and models presently exist that may aid stakeholders in implementing disclosure and vulnerability management?
○ How can the security researcher community work in collaboration with HPH stakeholders to identify, assess, and mitigate vulnerabilities?
• Sharing FDA's current thinking on the implementation of the Framework in the medical device total product lifecycle.
• Adapting cybersecurity and/or risk assessment tools such as CVSS for the medical device operational environment.
• Adapting and/or implementing existing cybersecurity standards for medical devices.
• Understanding the challenges that manufacturers face as they increase collaboration with external third parties (cybersecurity researchers, Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations (ISAOs), and end users), to resolve cybersecurity vulnerabilities that impact their devices. Note that an ISAO is a group created to gather, analyze, and disseminate critical infrastructure information (Ref. 7).
• Gaining situational awareness of the current activities in the HPH sector to enhance medical device cybersecurity.
• Identifying cybersecurity gaps and challenges that persist in the medical device ecosystem and begin crafting action plans to address them.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Susan Monahan, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Office of Communication and Education, 301-796-5661 or email:
Please provide complete contact information for each attendee, including name, title, affiliation, email, and telephone number. Those without Internet access should contact Susan Monahan to register. Registrants will receive confirmation after they have been accepted. You will be notified if you are on a waiting list.
The following references are on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service.
Notice.
In accordance with Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given that a meeting is scheduled for the Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health (the “Advisory Group”). This meeting will be open to the public. Information about the Advisory Group and the agenda for this meeting can be obtained by accessing the following Web site:
The meeting will be held on December 22, 2015. The exact meeting time will be published closer to the meeting date at:
This meeting will be held via teleconference. Teleconference information and an exact meeting time will be published closer to the meeting date at:
Office of the Surgeon General, 200 Independence Ave. SW.; Washington, DC 20201; 202-205-9517;
The Advisory Group is a non-discretionary federal advisory committee that was initially established under Executive Order 13544, dated June 10, 2010, to comply with the statutes under Section 4001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148. The Advisory Group was established to assist in carrying out the mission of the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council (the Council). The Advisory Group provides recommendations and advice to the Council.
The Advisory Group was terminated on September 30, 2012, by Executive Order 13591, dated November 23, 2011. Authority for the Advisory Group to be re-established was given under Executive Order 13631, dated December 7, 2012. Authority for the Advisory Group to continue to operate until September 30, 2017, was given under Executive Order 13708, dated September 30, 2015.
It is authorized for the Advisory Group to consist of no more than 25 non-federal members. The Advisory Group currently has 21 members who were appointed by the President. The membership includes a diverse group of licensed health professionals, including integrative health practitioners who have expertise in (1) worksite health promotion; (2) community services, including community health centers; (3) preventive medicine; (4) health coaching; (5) public health education; (6) geriatrics; and (7) rehabilitation medicine.
A meeting description and relevant materials will be published closer to the meeting date at:
Members of the public have the opportunity to participate in the meeting and/or provide comments to the Advisory Group on December 22, 2015. Public comment will be limited to 3 minutes per speaker. Individuals who wish to participate in the meeting and/or provide comments must register by 12:00 p.m. EST on December 15, 2015. In order to register, individuals must send their full name and affiliation via email to
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health.
Notice.
This is notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404, that the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of a Start-Up Exclusive Evaluation Option License Agreement to ElexiMed LLC, a company having a place of business at 5003 Green Mountain Circle, Suite 4, Columbia, MD 21044, USA, to practice the inventions embodied in the following patent applications.
The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the Government of the United States of America and the University of Hawaii.
The territory of the prospective Start-Up Exclusive Evaluation Option License Agreement may be worldwide, and the field of use may be limited to “Development and commercialization of aza-epoxy guaiane derivatives for treatment of renal cancer.”
Upon the expiration or termination of the Start-up Exclusive Evaluation Option License Agreement, ElexiMed LLC will have the exclusive right to execute a Start-Up Exclusive Patent License Agreement which will supersede and replace the Start-up Exclusive Evaluation Option License Agreement, with no greater field of use and territory than granted in the Start-up Exclusive Evaluation Option License Agreement.
Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the NCI Technology Transfer Center on or before December 22, 2015 will be considered.
Requests for copies of the patent application(s), inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated Start-Up Exclusive Evaluation Option License Agreement should be directed to: Rose Freel, Ph.D., Licensing and Patenting Manager, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute, Riverside 5, Suite 400, 8490 Progress Drive, Frederick, MD 21702; telephone: 301-624-1257; Facsimile: 301-631-3027; Email:
This technology describes aza-englerins, synthetic analogues of the natural product Englerin A which displays potent and selective anti-cancer properties in several cancer cell lines. The aza-englerins were developed as novel cancer therapeutics and show significant bioavailability after oral administration in mice.
The prospective Start-Up Exclusive Evaluation Option License Agreement is being considered under the small business initiative launched on October 1, 2011 and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.7. The prospective Start-Up Exclusive Evaluation Option License Agreement and a subsequent Start-Up Exclusive Patent License Agreement may be granted unless the NCI receives written evidence and argument, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, that establishes that the grant of the contemplated Start-Up Exclusive Evaluation Option License Agreement would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.7.
Complete applications for a license in the prospective field of use that are filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated Start-Up Exclusive Evaluation Option License Agreement. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council on Aging.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
12 U.S.C. 1701z-1 Research and Demonstrations.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, PIH, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., (L'Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109, (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Mussington.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
12 U.S.C. 1701z-1 Research and Demonstrations.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. We summarize the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. This information collection is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2015. 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. However, under OMB regulations, we may continue to conduct or sponsor this information collection while it is pending at OMB.
You must submit comments on or before January 6, 2016.
Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Hope Grey at
Our regulations at 50 CFR 21.49, 21.50, 21.51, and 21.52 require that persons or entities operating under the depredation and control orders must immediately report the take of any species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This information ensures that the incidental take limits authorized under section 7 of the ESA are not exceeded.
On August 18, 2015, we published in the
We again 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. 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 OMB and us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of availability and request for proposals.
The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) announces the availability of enhancement funds to tribes and their tribal education departments (TEDs) to promote tribal control and operation of BIE-funded schools on their reservations. This notice invites tribes with at least one BIE-funded school on their reservation/Indian land to submit grant proposals.
Grant proposals must be received by December 18, 2015, at 4:00 p.m.
Complete details on requirements for proposals and the evaluation and selection process can be found on the BIE Web site at
Ms. Wendy Greyeyes, Bureau of Indian Education, Office of the Director, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 208-5810.
In 2013, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Education convened an American Indian Education Study Group (Study Group) to diagnose the systemic challenges facing the BIE and to propose a comprehensive plan for reform to ensure all students attending BIE-funded schools receive a world-class education. The Study Group drafted a framework for reform based on several listening sessions in the fall of 2013 with tribal leaders, Indian educators and others throughout Indian Country on how to facilitate tribal sovereignty in American Indian education and how to improve educational outcomes for students at BIE-funded schools. Overall, the Study Group met with nearly 400 individuals and received nearly 200 comments that helped it prepare the draft framework for educational reform that became the subject of four tribal consultation sessions held in April and May of 2014. These efforts resulted in the
Acting on the recommendations in the
Enhancement funding is a two-year program, and awards will range from $100,000 to $200,000 per fiscal year. The amounts are dependent on the number of schools involved, number of students, complexity of creating a new tribally managed school system and the tribe's technical approach. Tribes with at least one Bureau-funded school on or near their reservation are eligible for these funds. These enhancements will provide funds for the tribe to:
• Develop an implementation plan that will reform a tribe's current organizational structure toward an expert and independent Tribal Education Department that will support schools and students;
• Cover the execution of the implementation plan with identified staffing, projected timelines, proposed budgets, and activities; and
• Research an alternative definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP) which is optional for applicants.
BIE is seeking proposals from tribes that support efforts to take control and operate BIE-funded schools located on the tribe's reservation. Each proposal must include a project narrative, a budget narrative, a work plan outline, and a Project Director to manage the execution of the grant. Project Directors will participate in monthly collaboration meetings, submit quarterly budget updates, ensure an annual report is submitted at the end of each project year, and ultimately ensure that the tribal education department fulfills the obligations of the grant. Complete details on requirements for proposals and the evaluation and selection process can be found on the BIE Web site at the address in the
The grant proposal is due
Faxed applications will NOT be accepted. Email submissions will be accepted at the address in the
Proposals submitted by Federal Express or Express Mail should be sent two or more days prior to the closing date. The proposal package should be sent to the address shown in the
The information collection requirements contained in this notice have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 3504(h). The OMB control number is 1076-0182. The authorization expires on March 31, 2018. An agency may not sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, any information collection that does not display a currently valid OMB Control Number.
The information collected is used to determine whether a tribe is eligible for the Sovereignty in Indian Education Grant and to determine whether the tribe is using the funding for the stated purpose of promoting tribal sovereignty in BIE-funded schools. The information is supplied by the respondents to obtain and/or retain a benefit. The public reporting burden is estimated to be between 1 and 40 hours per response. This includes the time needed to understand the requirements; gather the information; complete the proposal, quarterly budget reports, and the annual report; and submit to the Department. Comments regarding the burden or other aspects of the information collection may be directed to the Information Collection Clearance Officer—Indian Affairs, 1849 C Street NW., MS-3642, Washington, DC 20240.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of intent.
This notice advises the public that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) as lead agency intends to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) and conduct public scoping meetings to evaluate potential environmental impacts of the proposed Integrated Resource Management Plan (IRMP) for the Nez Perce Reservation located in north central Idaho. The PEIS will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The dates and locations of public scoping meetings will be published in the Lewiston Tribune, Moscow-Pullman Daily News, Ta'c Tito'oqan, Clearwater Tribune, Idaho County Free Press, Lewis County Herald, The Clearwater Progress, and Cottonwood Chronicle. Additional information will also be posted on the Tribe's Web site at
The public is invited to submit written comments to this Notice. Written comments may be submitted by mail, email, hand carry, or fax to: Ms. Anna Schmidt, Wildlife Biologist, BIA Northwest Regional Office, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4169, Phone: (503) 231-6808, Fax: (503) 231-6774, Email:
Ms. Anna Schmidt at (503) 231-6808 or
The proposed action is the preparation of an IRMP for the Nez Perce Reservation and BIA approval of long-term natural and cultural resource planning goals and objectives for the Nez Perce Reservation. The Tribe may use the Programmatic EIS (PEIS) for tiered, project-specific environmental assessments to cover specific actions as the IRMP is implemented. The Tribe has managed its natural and cultural resources under the goals and objectives of various department-specific plans under the direction of the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee. The PEIS will consider a proposed strategy in the IRMP to provide a framework for all Nez Perce Tribal agencies to manage natural and cultural resources within the Nez Perce Reservation.
It is anticipated that the PEIS will assess four management strategy alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under the Maximum Resource Development Alternative, the Tribe's resource management strategy would be to maximally promote human land uses, growth, and the use of natural and cultural resources to generate revenue for the Tribe. Under the Development Emphasis Alternative, the Tribe's resource management strategy would be to emphasize human land use, growth, and the use of natural and cultural resources to generate revenue for the Tribe, while ensuring a moderate level of natural and cultural resource conservation, protection, and enhancement. Under the Conservation Emphasis Alternative, the Tribe's resource management strategy would be to emphasize natural and cultural resource conservation, protection, and enhancement, while ensuring a moderate level of human land use, growth, and the use of natural and cultural resources to generate revenue for the Tribe. Under the Maximum Conservation Alternative, the Tribe's resource management strategy would be to maximally promote natural and cultural resource conservation, protection, and enhancement. Under the No Action Alternative, the existing resource management strategies will be assessed. Additional strategies or alternatives or variations of those proposed above may be developed as a result of public scoping. Significant issues to be covered during the scoping process may include, but will not be limited to, air quality, geology and soils, surface and groundwater resources, wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, cultural resources, socioeconomic conditions, land use, aesthetics, and Indian trust resources.
This notice is published in accordance with sections 1503.1 of the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508) and Sec. 46.305 of the Department of the Interior Regulations (43 CFR part 46), implementing the procedural requirements of NEPA, as amended (42 U.5.C. 4321
United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC), United States and Mexico.
Proposed establishment of a new Privacy Act system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the USIBWC is issuing public notice of its intent to modify an existing Privacy Act system of records notice, DOI-85, “Payroll, Attendance, Retirement, and Leave Records.” The revisions will update the categories of individuals covered by the system, categories of records in the system, routine uses of records maintained in the system, retrievability of records, records' safeguards, retention and disposition of records, and record source categories.
Comments must be received by January 2, 2016.
Any persons interested in commenting on these proposed amendments may do so by submitting comments in writing to the Legal Department, Senior Agency Officer for Privacy, Matthew Myers, U.S. IBWC, 4171 N. Mesa, C-100, El Paso, TX 79902, or by email to
Z. Mora, Chief, Information Management Division, Administration Department, 4171 N. Mesa, C-100, El Paso, TX 79902 or by email at
The Office of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior is proposing to amend the system notice for DOI-85, “Payroll, Attendance, Retirement, and Leave Records” to update the categories of individuals covered by the system, categories of records in the system, routine uses of records maintained in the system, retrievability of records, records' safeguards, retention and disposition of records, and record source categories to reflect changes that have occurred since the notice was last published. These amendments will be effective as proposed at the end of the comment period unless comments are received which would require a contrary determination. The USIBWC will publish a revised notice if changes are made based upon a review of comments received.
Payroll, Attendance, Retirement, and Leave Records—Interior, DOI-85.
(1) Personnel and Payroll Systems Division, National Business Center, U.S. Department of the Interior, 7201 West Mansfield Avenue, MS D-2400, Denver, CO 80235-2230.
(2) All Departmental offices and locations which prepare and provide input documents and information for data processing and administrative actions.
(1) Current and former employees of the USIBWC
(2) Current and former emergency workers (“casuals”) of the USIBWC (emergency workers).
(3) Volunteers within the USIBWC (volunteers).
(4) Contractors within the USIBWC (contractors).
Emergency worker name, emergency worker address, emergency worker phone numbers, emergency worker Social Security Number and organizational code; contractor name, contractor Social Security Number, contractor organization; employee name, employee address, employee phone numbers, employee emergency contact information (including name, address and phone number), employee Social Security Number and organizational code; employee common identifier (ECI), pay rate, grade, length of service, individual's pay and leave records; source documents for posting time and leave attendance; allowances, and cost distribution records; deductions for Medicare, Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI, also known as Social Security), bonds, Federal Employees Group Life Insurance (FEGLI), union dues, taxes, allotments, quarters, retirement, charities, health benefits, Flexible Spending Account, Long Term Care, Thrift Savings Fund contributions, awards, shift schedules, and pay differentials, tax lien data, commercial garnishments, child support and/or alimony wage assignments; and related payroll and personnel data. Also included is information on debts owed to the government as a result of overpayment, refunds owed, or a debt referred for collection on a transferred employee or emergency worker. The payroll, attendance, retirement, and leave records described in this notice form a part of the information contained in the Department of the Interior's integrated Federal Personnel and Payroll System (FPPS). Personnel records contained in the FPPS are covered under the government-wide system of records notice published by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM/GOVT-1) and the Department-wide system of records notice, DOI-79, “Interior Personnel Records.”
5 U.S.C. 5101,
The primary uses of the records are for fiscal operations for payroll, time and attendance, leave, insurance, tax, retirement, debt, budget, and cost accounting programs; to prepare related reports to other Federal agencies including the Department of the Treasury and the Office of Personnel Management; for reporting purposes by the DOI component for which the employee works or the agency for which the DOI emergency worker works; and for human capital management purposes.
Disclosure outside the Department of the Interior may be made:
(1) To the Department of the Treasury for preparation of payroll (and other) checks and electronic funds transfers to Federal, State, and local government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and individuals.
(2) To the Internal Revenue Service and to State, local, tribal, and territorial governments for tax purposes.
(3) To the Office of Personnel Management or its contractors in connection with programs administered by that office, including, but not limited to, the Federal Long Term Care (LTC) Insurance Program, the Federal Dental and Vision Insurance Program (FEDVIP), the Flexible Spending Accounts for Federal Employees Program (FSAFEDS), and the electronic Human Resources Information Program (EHRI).
(4) To another Federal agency to which an employee or DOI emergency worker has transferred or in which a DOI volunteer transfers in a volunteer capacity.
(5) (a) To any of the following entities or individuals, when the circumstances set forth in paragraph (b) are met:
(i) The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ);
(ii) A court or an adjudicative or other administrative body;
(iii) A party in litigation before a court or an adjudicative or other administrative body; or
(iv) Any DOI employee acting in his or her individual capacity if DOI or DOJ has agreed to represent that employee or pay for private Representation of the employee;
(b) When:
(i) One of the following is a party to the proceeding or has an interest in the proceeding:
(A) DOI or any component of DOI;
(B) Any other Federal agency appearing before the Office of Hearings and Appeals;
(C) Any DOI employee acting in his or her official capacity;
(D) Any DOI employee acting in his or her individual capacity if DOI or DOJ has agreed to represent that employee or pay for private representation of the employee;
(E) The United States, when DOJ determines that DOI is likely to be affected by the proceeding; and
(ii) DOI deems the disclosure to be:
(A) Relevant and necessary to the proceeding; and
(B) Compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.
(6) To any criminal, civil, or regulatory law enforcement authority (whether federal, state, territorial, local, tribal or foreign) when a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law—criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature, and the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.
(7) To a congressional office in response to a written inquiry that an individual covered by the system, or the heir of such individual if the covered individual is deceased, has made to the office.
(8) To Federal, State or local agencies where necessary to enable the employee's, DOI emergency worker's, or DOI volunteer's agency to obtain information relevant to the hiring or retention of that employee, DOI emergency worker, or DOI volunteer, or the issuance of a security clearance, contract, license, grant or other benefit.
(9) To appropriate Federal and State agencies to provide required reports including data on unemployment insurance.
(10) To the Social Security Administration to credit the employee's or emergency worker's account for OASDI and Medicare deductions.
(11) To labor unions to report union dues deductions.
(12) To employee or emergency worker associations to report dues deductions.
(13) To insurance carriers to report employee or DOI emergency worker election information and withholdings for health insurance.
(14) To charitable institutions to report contributions.
(15) To a Federal agency for the purpose of collecting a debt owed the Federal government through administrative or salary offset.
(16) To disclose debtor information to the Internal Revenue Service or to another Federal agency or its contractor solely to aggregate information for the Internal Revenue Service to collect debts owed to the Federal government through the offset of tax refunds.
(17) To any creditor Federal agency seeking assistance for the purpose of that agency implementing administrative or salary offset procedures in the collection of unpaid financial obligations owed the United States Government from an individual.
(18) To any Federal agency where the individual debtor is employed or receiving some form of remuneration for the purpose of enabling that agency to collect debts on the employee's behalf by administrative or salary offset procedures under the provisions of the Debt Collection Act of 1982.
(19) To disclose information to the Internal Revenue Service, and state and local authorities for the purposes of locating a debtor to collect a claim against the debtor.
(20) With respect to Bureau of Indian Affairs employee or DOI emergency worker records, to a Federal, State, local agency, or Indian tribal group or any establishment or individual that assumes jurisdiction, either by contract or legal transfer, of any program under the control of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
(21) With respect to Bureau of Reclamation employee or DOI emergency worker records, to non-Federal auditors under contract with the Department of the Interior or Energy or water user and other organizations with which the Bureau of Reclamation has written agreements permitting access to financial records to perform financial audits.
(22) To the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board's record keeper which administers the Thrift Savings Plan to report deductions, contributions and loan payments.
(23) To disclose the names, Social Security Numbers, home addresses, dates of birth, dates of hire, quarterly earnings, employer identifying information and state of hire of employees or emergency workers to the Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services for the purposes of locating individuals to establish paternity, establishing and modifying orders of child support, identifying sources of income, and for other child support enforcement actions as required by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (Welfare Reform Law, Pub. L. 104-193).
(24) To a commercial contractor to provide employment and income data for use in employment verifications, unemployment claims, and W-2 services.
(25) To OPM's Employee Express system to allow employees a self-service capability to initiate personnel and payroll actions and to obtain payroll information.
(26) To the Department of Labor for processing claims for employees, DOI emergency workers, or DOI volunteers injured on the job or claiming occupational illness.
(27) To support interfaces to other systems operated by the Federal agencies for which the employee or DOI emergency worker works, or a DOI volunteer volunteers, for the purpose of avoiding duplication, increasing data integrity and streamlining government operations.
(28) To an official of another federal agency to provide information needed in the performance of official duties related to reconciling or reconstructing data files or to enable that agency to respond to an inquiry by the individual to whom the record pertains.
(29) To representatives of the National Archives and Records Administration to conduct records management inspections under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
(30) To an expert, consultant, or contractor (including employees of the contractor) of DOI that performs services requiring access to these records on DOI's behalf to carry out the purposes of the system.
(31) To the Office of Management and Budget during the coordination and clearance process in connection with legislative affairs as mandated by OMB Circular A-19.
(32) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
(a) It is suspected or confirmed that the security or confidentiality of
(b) The Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interest, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and
(c) The disclosure is made to such agencies, entities and persons who are reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(33) To federal, state, territorial, local, tribal, or foreign agencies that have requested information relevant or necessary to the hiring, firing or retention of an employee or contractor, or the issuance of a security clearance, license, contract, grant or other benefit, when the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.
(34) To state and local governments and tribal organizations to provide information needed in response to court order and/or discovery purposes related to litigation, when the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.
(35) To the Department of the Treasury to recover debts owed to the United States.
(36) To the news media when the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.
Disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12). Disclosures may be made from this system to consumer reporting agencies as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)) or the Federal Claims Act of 1966 (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)).
Records are maintained in manual, microfilm, microfiche, electronic, imaged and computer printout form. Original input documents are stored in standard office filing equipment and/or as imaged documents on magnetic media at all locations which prepare and provide input documents and information for data processing.
Records may be retrieved by employee, DOI emergency worker, or DOI volunteer identification such as name, Social Security Number, common identifier, birthday, organizational code, etc.
Access to records covered by the system will be permitted only to authorized personnel in accordance with requirements found in the Departmental Privacy Act regulations (43 CFR 2.51). Paper or micro format records are maintained in locked metal file cabinets or in Secured rooms. Electronic records are maintained with safeguards meeting the security requirements of 43 CFR 2.51 for automated records, which conform to Office of Management and Budget and Departmental guidelines reflecting the implementation of the Federal Information Security Management Act. The electronic data are protected through user identification, passwords, database permissions, encryption and software controls. Such security measures establish different degrees of access for different types of users. An audit trail is maintained and reviewed periodically to identify unauthorized access. A Privacy Impact Assessment was completed and is updated at least annually to ensure that Privacy Act requirements and personally identifiable information safeguard requirements are met.
The records contained in this system of records have varying retention periods as described in the General Records Schedule, Sections 1, 2, and 20, (at
The following system manager is responsible for the payroll records contained in the Department's Federal Personnel and Payroll System (FPPS): Chief, Personnel and Payroll Systems Division, National Business Center, U.S. Department of the Interior, 7201 West Mansfield Avenue, Denver, CO 80235-2230. Personnel records contained in the system fall under the jurisdiction of the Office of Personnel Management as prescribed in 5 CFR part 253 and 5 CFR part 297.
Inquiries regarding the existence of records should be addressed to the System Manager. The request must be in writing, signed by the requester, and meet the requirements of 43 CFR 2.60.
A request for access may be addressed to the System Manager. The request must be in writing, signed by the requester, and meet the requirements of 43 CFR 2.63.
A petition for amendment should be addressed to the System Manager. The request must be in writing, signed by the requester, and meet the content requirements of 43 CFR 2.71.
The source data for the system comes from individuals on whom the records are maintained, official personnel records of individuals on whom the records are maintained, supervisors, timekeepers, previous employers, the Internal Revenue Service and state tax agencies, the Department of the Treasury, other federal agencies, courts, state child support agencies, employing agency accounting offices, and third-party benefit providers.
None.
United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC), United States and Mexico.
Proposed establishment of a new Privacy Act system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), the USIBWC is issuing public notice of its intent to establish a new Privacy Act system of records, DOI-84, “Interior Business Center Datamart.”
Comments must be received by January 2, 2016.
Any persons interested in commenting on this new, proposed system of records may do so by submitting comments in writing to the Legal Department, Senior Agency Officer for Privacy, Matthew Myers, U.S.
Z. Mora, Chief, Information Management Division, Administration Department, 4171 N. Mesa, C-100, El Paso, TX 79902 or by email at
The information contained in Datamart is derived from two existing systems covered by Privacy Act Systems of Records Notices: Federal Personnel and Payroll System (FPPS) covered by DOI-85, “Payroll, Attendance, Retirement, and Leave Records” and Federal Financial System (FFS) covered by DOI-90, “Federal Financial System,” as well as associated systems. The purpose of the Datamart is to provide a data warehouse that allows appropriate users to access FPPS and FFS data through a core reporting tool, Hyperion. The reports may be pre-formatted or ad hoc, and are available to appropriate users from the Department of the Interior or appropriate individuals from other Federal agencies, as detailed in the routine uses. This notice will be effective as proposed at the end of the comment period unless comments are received which would require a contrary determination. The USIBWC will publish a revised notice if changes are made based upon a review of comments received.
Interior, Interior Business Center Datamart, DOI-84.
Records are located at the Interior Business Center, U.S.
Department of the Interior, 7301 West Mansfield Avenue, Denver, CO 80235.
(1) Current and former employees of the USIBWC.
(2) Current and former emergency workers of the USIBWC.
(3) Current and former volunteers within the USIBWC (volunteers).
(4) Current and former contractors within the USIBWC (contractors).
(5) Individuals identified as emergency contacts for the above employees, emergency workers, and volunteers.
(6) Individual and corporate vendors who do business with the USIBWC. (Only records containing personal information relating to individuals are subject to the Privacy Act.)
Employee (and emergency worker, volunteer, contractor and vendor) name, address, phone numbers, birth date; employee (and emergency worker and volunteer) emergency contact information (including name, address, phone numbers and relationship to individual), Social Security Number and organizational code; employee common identifier (ECI); vendor Taxpayer Identification Number; vendor code or number; employee ethnicity/race, pay rate, grade, length of service, individual's pay and leave records; time and attendance records, leave request records, allowances and cost distribution records; employee deductions for Medicare, Old Age Survivor and Disability Insurance (OASDI), bonds, Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI), union dues, taxes, allotments, quarters, retirement, charities, health benefits, Flexible Spending Account, Long Term Care, and Thrift Savings Fund contributions; employee awards, shift schedules, pay differentials, tax lien data, commercial garnishments and child support and/or alimony wage assignments; related payroll and personnel data. Also included is information on debts owed to the government as a result of overpayment, refunds owed or a debt referred for collection on an employee, emergency worker or contractor.
31 U.S.C. 3512,
The primary use of records in the system is to provide a repository for data from FPPS (Federal Personnel Payroll System) and FFS (Federal Financial System) that allows agencies to query the data in order to produce required reports in support of fiscal operations and personnel payroll processing.
(1) To other Federal agencies to produce required reports, in support of their fiscal and personnel/payroll processing.
(2) (a) To any of the following entities or individuals, when the circumstances set forth in paragraph (b) are met:
(i) The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ);
(ii) A court or an adjudicative or other administrative body;
(iii) A party in litigation before a court or an adjudicative or other administrative body; or
(iv) Any USIBWC employee or USIBWC emergency worker acting in his or her individual capacity if USIBWC or DOJ or the DOI emergency worker's agency has agreed to represent that individual or pay for private representation of the individual;
(b) When:
(i) One of the following is a party to the proceeding or has an interest in the proceeding:
(A) USIBWC or any component of USIBWC;
(B) Any USIBWC emergency worker's agency;
(C) Any other Federal agency appearing before the Office of Hearings and Appeals;
(D) Any USIBWC employee or USIBWC emergency worker acting in his or her official capacity;
(E) Any USIBWC employee or USIBWC emergency worker acting in his or her individual capacity if USIBWC or DOJ or the USIBWC emergency worker's agency has agreed to represent that individual or pay for private representation of the individual;
(F) The United States, when DOJ determines that USIBWC or any USIBWC emergency worker's agency is likely to be affected by the proceeding; and
(ii) USIBWC or any DOI emergency worker's agency deems the disclosure to be:
(A) Relevant and necessary to the proceeding; and
(B) Compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.
(3) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
(a) It is suspected or confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; and
(b) The USIBWC has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to an economic or property interest, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and
(c) The disclosure is made to such agencies, entities and persons who are reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the USIBWC's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize or remedy such harm.
(4) To a congressional office in response to a written inquiry that an
(5) To any criminal, civil or regulatory law enforcement authority (whether federal, state, territorial, local, tribal or foreign) when a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law—criminal, civil or regulatory in nature, and the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.
(6) To an official of another Federal agency to provide information needed in the performance of official duties related to reconciling or reconstructing data files or to enable that agency to respond to an inquiry by the individual to whom the record pertains.
(7) To Federal, state, territorial, local, tribal or foreign agencies that have requested information relevant or necessary to the hiring, firing or retention of an employee or contractor, or the issuance of a security clearance, license, contract, grant or other benefit, when the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.
(8) To representatives of the National Archives and Records Administration to conduct records management inspections under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
(9) To state and local governments and tribal organizations to provide information needed in response to court order and/or for discovery purposes related to litigation, when the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.
(10) To an expert, consultant or contractor (including employees of the contractor) of DOI that performs services requiring access to these records on DOI's behalf to carry out the purposes of the system.
Records maintained in the Datamart are electronic and contain information from source systems. They are stored in magnetic media at the central computer processing center. All NIST guidelines, as well as Departmental and OMB guidance are followed concerning the storage of the records.
Records may be retrieved by entries reflecting the various categories of records in the system including name of individual, name of emergency contact, Social Security Number, Tax Identification Number, vendor code or number, date of birth, organizational code, etc.
Electronic records are maintained with safeguards meeting all appropriate statutory and regulatory guidelines, as well as Departmental guidance addressing the security requirements of Departmental Privacy Act Regulations (43 CFR 2.51) for automated records, and with Office of Management and Budget, and NIST. Further, agency officials only have access to records pertaining to their agencies.
(1) Physical security: Computer systems are maintained in locked rooms housed within secure USIBWC buildings.
(2) Technical Security: Electronic records are maintained in conformity with Office of Management and Budget and USIBWC guidelines reflecting the implementation of the Federal Information Security Management Act. The electronic data are protected through user identification, passwords, database permissions, encryption and software controls. Such security measures establish different degrees of access for different types of users. An audit trail is maintained and reviewed periodically to identify unauthorized access. A Privacy Impact Assessment was completed to ensure that Privacy Act requirements and personally identifiable information safeguard requirements are met.
(3) Administrative Security: All USIBWC and contractor employees with access to Datamart are required to complete Privacy Act, Federal Records Act and IT Security Awareness training prior to being given access to the system, and on an annual basis thereafter. In addition, Federal employees supervise and monitor the use of Datamart.
Records contained in this system are documented as items 1400 and 7554 of the Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary's pending records schedule.
Chief, Applications Management and Technical Services Branch, Interior Business Center, U.S. Department of the Interior, 7301 West Mansfield Avenue, Denver, CO 80235-2230.
Inquiries regarding the existence of records should be addressed to the System Manager. The request must be in writing, signed by the requester, and meet the requirements of 43 CFR 2.60, which requires writing PRIVACY ACT INQUIRY prominently on your envelope and correspondence.
A request for access should be submitted to the System Manager at the above address. It must be submitted in writing, signed by the requester, and meet the requirements of 43 CFR 2.63, which requires writing PRIVACY ACT REQUEST FOR ACCESS prominently on the envelope and the front of the request.
A petition for amendment should be addressed to the System Manager. The request must be in writing, signed by the requester, and meet the content requirements of 43 CFR 2.71, which include stating the reasons why the petitioner believes the record is in error, and the changes sought.
The source data for the system comes from FPPS and FFS.
None.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 17) granting respondents' motion for summary determination of patent invalidity due to indefiniteness.
Megan M. Valentine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-708-2301. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
The Commission instituted this investigation on January 13, 2015, based on a complaint filed by One-E-Way, Inc. of Pasadena, California (“One-E-Way”). 80
On August 10, 2015, respondents Sony, BlueAnt, Creative Labs, and GN Netcom (collectively, “Respondents”) filed a motion for summary determination that asserted claim 8 of the '258 patent and asserted claims 1, 3-6, and 10 of the '391 patent are invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 2. On August 20, 2015, the Commission investigative attorney (“IA”) filed a response in support of the motion. Also on August 20, 2015, One-E-Way filed an opposition to the motion. On August 27, 2015, Respondents moved for leave to file a reply to One-E-Way's opposition, which the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granted that same day.
On September 21, 2015, the ALJ issued the subject initial determination (“ID”), granting Respondents' motion for summary determination that all of the asserted claims of the '258 and '391 patents are invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 2 and terminating the investigation with a finding of no violation of section 337.
On October 2, 2015, One-E-Way filed a petition for review of the subject ID. On October 9, 2015, Respondents and the IA each filed responses to the petition.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the subject ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the subject ID.
In connection with its review, the Commission requests responses to the following questions:
1. Please point to the specific areas in the record where the putative indefiniteness of the clause “virtually free from interference” was a significant topic of substantive discussion among the parties and the ALJ.
2. Please explain how the clause “virtually free from interference” is material to a position any party has taken in this Investigation with respect to validity under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, or 112(a) (formerly 112 ¶1), or infringement under section 271. Please provide citations to specific areas in the record (including document name and page number) in which this materiality was raised or discussed.
3. Please explain how the materiality discussed in Q2 turns on the degree of freedom from interference. Please provide citations to specific areas in the record (including document name and page number) in which this turning was raised or discussed.
4. Please explain in detail what lead to the difference in outcomes on the issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (formerly 112 ¶2) of the Federal Circuit decisions in
Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested to file written submissions on the issues identified in this notice. The written submissions must be filed no later than close of business on December 11, 2015. Initial submissions are limited to 30 pages. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on December 18, 2015. Reply submissions are limited to 15 pages. The parties may not incorporate by reference their prior filings before the ALJ or the Commission. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-943”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures,
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with any confidential filing. All non-confidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on November 2, 2015, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Fitbit, Inc. of San Francisco, California. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain wearable activity tracking devices, systems, and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,920,332 (“the '332 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,868,377 (“the '377 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 9,089,760 (“the '760 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain wearable activity tracking devices, systems, and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 4, 5, and 13-17 of the '332 patent; claims 1-4, 7-11, 16, 25, 27, and 28 of the '377 patent; claims 1-15 and 18-21 of the '760 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: Fitbit, Inc., 405 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has found a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation and has issued a limited exclusion order prohibiting respondents Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc., both of Olathe, Kansas, and Garmin (Asia) Corporation of New Taipei City, Taiwan (collectively, “Garmin”), from importing certain marine sonar imaging devices, including
Lucy Grace D. Noyola, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3438. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
The Commission instituted this investigation on July 14, 2014, based on a complaint filed by Navico, Inc. of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Navico Holding AS, of Egersund, Norway (collectively, “Navico”). 79 FR 40778 (July 14, 2014). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 by reason of the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain marine sonar imaging devices, including downscan and sidescan devices, products containing the same, and components thereof.
On March 3, 2015, the Commission determined on summary determination that Navico satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '840 and '499 patents and the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '840 and '550 patents. Notice (Mar. 3, 2015) (determining not to review Order No. 14 (Jan. 29, 2015) and Order No. 15 (Jan. 30, 2015)).
On July 2, 2015, the ALJ issued a final initial determination (“ID”) finding no violation of section 337 with respect to all three asserted patents. Specifically, the ALJ found that the asserted claims of each patent are not infringed and were not shown to be invalid for anticipation or obviousness. The ALJ found that the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement was not satisfied with respect to the '550 patent. The ALJ also issued a recommended determination on remedy and bonding (“RD”), recommending, if the Commission finds a section 337 violation, that a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order should issue and that a bond should be imposed at a reasonable royalty of eight percent for each infringing device imported during the period of presidential review.
On July 20, 2015, Navico and OUII filed petitions for review challenging various findings in the final ID, and Garmin filed a contingent petition for review. On July 28, 2015, the parties filed responses to the various petitions. On August 5, 2015, Navico and Garmin filed post-RD statements on the public interest under Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4). The Commission did not receive any post-RD public interest comments from the public.
On September 3, 2015, the Commission determined to review the final ID in part and requested additional briefing from the parties on certain issues. 80 FR 54592 (Sept. 10, 2015). Specifically, the Commission determined to review (1) the ALJ's construction of the limitation “single linear downscan transducer element” recited in claims 1 and 23 of the '840 patent (and its variants in the '499 and '550 patents); (2) the ALJ's construction of the limitation “combine” (and its variants) recited in claims 1, 24, and 43 of the '499 patent; (3) the ALJ's findings of noninfringement with respect to the three asserted patents; (4) the ALJ's findings of validity with respect to the three asserted patents; and (5) the ALJ's finding regarding the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '550 patent.
On September 14, 2015, the parties filed initial written submissions addressing the Commission's questions and remedy, bonding, and the public interest. On September 21, 2015, the parties filed response briefs. No comments were received from the public.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the final ID and the parties' submissions, the Commission has determined that Navico has proven a violation of section 337 based on infringement of claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 16-19, 23, 32, 39-41, 63, and 70-72 of the '840 patent and infringement of claims 32 and 44 of the '550 patent. The Commission has determined to modify the ALJ's construction of certain terms in the asserted claims of the asserted patents, including “single linear downscan transducer element” recited in the '840 patent and its variants recited in the '550 and '499 patents. Under the modified constructions, the Commission has determined Navico has proven that (i) the accused Garmin echo products, echoMAP products, and GPSMAP products with their respective transducers infringe claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 16-19, 23, 32, 39-41, and 70-72 of the '840 patent; (ii) the accused Garmin echoMAP products and GPSMAP products with their respective transducers infringe claim 63 of the '840 patent; (iii) the accused Garmin GCV10 and GSD25 sonar modules with their respective transducers infringe claims 1, 5, 9, 11, 23, and 32 of the '840 patent; (iv) the accused Garmin GT30 transducer, which comes with the GCV10 sonar module, infringes claims 1, 7, 12, 13, and 57 of the '550 patent; and (v) the accused Garmin GT30 transducer, in conjunction with the GCV10 sonar module, infringes claims 32 and 44 of the '550 patent. The Commission has determined Garmin has not proven that the asserted claims of the '840 patent are invalid. The Commission has determined that Garmin has proven that claims 1, 7, 12, 13, and 57 of the '550 patent are invalid as obvious, but that Garmin has not proven that claims 32 and 44 of the '550 patent are invalid. The Commission has also determined that Navico has proven that a domestic industry exists in the United States for the '550 patent.
The Commission has determined that Navico has not proven a violation with respect to the '499 patent. The Commission has determined to adopt, on modified grounds, the ALJ's construction of the term “combining” (and its variants) recited in the asserted claims of the '499 patent. Under that construction, the Commission has determined that the asserted claims are not invalid and not infringed.
The Commission has determined the appropriate remedy is a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order prohibiting Garmin from importing into the United States or selling or distributing within the United States certain marine sonar imaging devices, including downscan and sidescan devices, products containing the same, and components thereof that infringe the asserted claims of the '840 and '550 patents. The Commission has determined the public interest factors enumerated in section 337(d)(1) and (f)(1) do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order or cease and desist order.
Finally, the Commission has determined to apply a bond in the amount of 100 percent of the entered value of excluded products imported during the period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)). The Commission's order and opinion were delivered to the President and to the United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on October 22, 2015, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and NSC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On September 24, 2014, NSC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
Notice is hereby given that, on October 19, 2015, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
On September 15, 2004, ASME filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 20, 2015. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on October 30, 2015, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, FiberFin, Inc., Yorkville, IL; EN Technologies Inc., Gunpo-si, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; and OTO Ltd., Gyungju-Si, REPUBLIC OF KOREA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and ODVA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On June 21, 1995, ODVA filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on August 5, 2015. A notice was published in the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until January 6, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please Larry Penninger, Chief, National Tracing Center, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 20226 at email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• 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;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; 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,
Overview of this information collection 1140-0039:
1.
2.
3.
Form number: ATF F 3310.11.
Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.
4.
Primary: Business or other for-profit.
Other: Not-for-profit institutions, Federal Government, State, Local, or Tribal Government.
Abstract: This form requires that licensees report the theft or loss of firearms to the Attorney General and the appropriate authorities.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to expand the scope of recognition for Canadian Standards Association, as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on December 7, 2015.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of Canadian Standards Association (CSA) as an NRTL. CSA's expansion covers the addition of two test standards to its scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification of the products.
The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
CSA submitted an application, dated January 29, 2015 (OSHA-2006-0042-0003), to expand its recognition to include two additional test standards. OSHA staff detailed analysis of the application and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing CSA's expansion application in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to CSA's application, go to
OSHA staff examined CSA's expansion application, its capability to meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that CSA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the specified limitation and conditions listed below. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant CSA's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of CSA's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the test standards listed in Table 1 below.
OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before using them in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, an NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standards listed above as American National Standards. However, for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, CSA must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
1. CSA must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as an NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. CSA must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. CSA must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on CSA's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of CSA, subject to the limitation and conditions specified above.
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the application of TUV SUD America Inc. for expansion of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before December 22, 2015.
Submit comments by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is providing notice that TUV SUD America Inc. (TUVAM) is applying for expansion of its current recognition as an NRTL. TUVAM requests the addition of one recognized testing and certification site and fifteen test standards to its NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1910.7 (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition, and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. Recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
Each NRTL's scope of recognition has three elements: (1) The type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its applicable test standard; (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope; and (3) the supplemental program(s) that the NRTL may use. Each of these elements allows the NRTL to rely on other parties to perform activities necessary for product testing and certification.
TUVAM currently has three facilities (sites) recognized by OSHA for product testing and certification, with its headquarters located at: TUD SUD America, Inc., 10 Centennial Drive, Peabody, MA 01960. A complete list of TUVAM sites recognized by OSHA is available at
TUVAM submitted an application, dated October 16, 2014 (Exhibit 15-3, Application to Add Test Site and Test Standards, OSHA-2007-0043), to expand its recognition to include the addition of one recognized testing and certification site located at: TUV SUD, 1229 Ringwell Drive, Newmarket, ON, L3Y 8T8, Canada. Additionally, this application seeks to expand its recognition to include fifteen additional test standards. OSHA staff also performed an on-site review of TUVAM's testing facilities in Newmarket, ON Canada on July 14-15, 2015, during which the assessors found some nonconformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. TUVAM addressed these issues sufficiently, and OSHA staff preliminarily determined that OSHA should grant the application.
Table 1 below lists the appropriate test standards found in TUVAM's application for expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.
TUVAM submitted an acceptable application for expansion of its scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file and its detailed on-site assessment indicate that TUVAM can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its recognition to include the addition of one site and fifteen standards for NRTL testing and certification. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of TUVAM's application.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether TUVAM meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition as an NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, Room N-2625, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. These materials also are available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these comments, will recommend to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health whether to grant TUVAM's application for expansion of its scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the application of Quality Auditing Institute, Ltd. for expansion of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the Agency's preliminary finding to grant the application. Additionally, OSHA proposes to add a new test standard to the NRTL list of appropriate test standards.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before December 22, 2015.
Submit comments by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is providing notice that Quality Auditing Institute, Ltd. (QAI), is applying for expansion of its current recognition as an NRTL. QAI requests the addition of sixteen test standards to its NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
QAI currently has two facilities (sites) recognized by OSHA for product testing and certification, with its headquarters located at: #16-211 Schoolhouse Street, Coquitlam, B.C., V3K 4X9, Canada. A complete list of QAI's scope of recognition is available at
QAI submitted an application, dated November 18, 2014 (Exhibit 15-1—Application for Scope Expansion OSHA-2013-0017), to expand its recognition to include sixteen additional test standards. OSHA staff performed detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
Table 1 below lists the test standards found in QAI's application for expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program. All of these standards already appear on OSHA's list of appropriate test standards except UL 962, Standard for Household and Commercial Furnishings. As discussed below, OSHA is proposing to add UL 962 to the appropriate test standard list by this notice.
Periodically, OSHA will propose to add new test standards to the NRTL list of appropriate test standards following an evaluation of the test standard document. To qualify as an appropriate test standard, the Agency evaluates the document to (1) verify it represents a product category for which OSHA requires certification by an NRTL, (2) verify the document represents an end product and not a component, and (3) verify the document defines safety test specifications (not installation or operational performance specifications).
In this notice, OSHA proposes to add a new test standard to the NRTL Program's list of appropriate test standards. Table 2, below, lists the test standard new to the NRTL Program. OSHA preliminarily determined that this test standard is an appropriate test standard and proposes to include this test standard in the NRTL Program's list of appropriate test standards. OSHA seeks public comment on this preliminary determination.
QAI submitted an acceptable application for expansion of its scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file and pertinent information indicate that QAI can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its recognition to include the addition of these sixteen test standards for NRTL testing and certification listed above. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of QAI's application.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether QAI meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition as an NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if the request is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, Room N-2625, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. These materials also are available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these comments, will recommend to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health whether to grant QAI's application for expansion of its scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
OSHA will publish a public notice of its final decision in the
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to expand the scope of recognition for Curtis-Strauss LLC, as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on December 7, 2015.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of Curtis-Strauss LLC (CSL), as an NRTL. CSL's expansion covers the addition of five test standards to its scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification of the products.
The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
CSL submitted an application, dated November 3, 2014 (OSHA-2009-0026-0058), to expand its recognition to include five additional test standards. OSHA staff performed a comparability analysis and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA performed an on-site review in relation to this application on January 27-28, 2015.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing CSL's expansion
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to the CSL's application, go to
OSHA staff examined CSL's expansion application, conducted a detailed on-site assessment, and examined other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that CSL meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the specified limitation and conditions listed below. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant CSL's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of CSL's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the test standards listed in Table 1 below.
OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before using them in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, an NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standards listed above as American National Standards. However, for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, CSL must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
1. CSL must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as an NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. CSL must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. CSL must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on CSL's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of CSL, subject to the limitation and conditions specified above.
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
National Endowment for the Humanities, National Foundation On the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice of Charter Renewal for Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel Advisory Committee.
Pursuant to section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) and its implementing regulations, 41 CFR 102-3.65, the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities (the Council) gives notice that the Charter for the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel advisory committee was renewed for an additional two-year period on November 25, 2015. The Council determined that renewing the advisory committee is in the public interest in connection with the duties imposed on the Council by the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act, 20 U.S.C. 971
Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20506. Telephone: (202) 606-8322, facsimile (202) 606-8600, or email at
National Endowment for the Humanities.
Notice of Charter Renewal for Humanities Panel Advisory Committee.
Pursuant to section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) and its implementing regulations, 41 CFR 102-3.65, the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) gives notice that the Charter for the Humanities Panel advisory committee was renewed for an additional two-year period on November 25, 2015. The Chairman of NEH determined that the renewal of the Humanities Panel is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Chairperson of NEH by the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. 951
Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20506. Telephone: (202) 606-8322, facsimile (202) 606-8600, or email at
The National Science Board, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of a meeting for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:
Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 1:30-2:00 p.m. EST.
Chair's opening remarks; discussion of candidates proposed for the NSB Class of 2016—2022 by the ad hoc Committee on Nominations (NOMS).
Closed.
This meeting will be held by teleconference originating at the National Science Board Office, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.
Please refer to the National Science Board Web site (
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of OMB approval of revised collections of information.
The Office of Management and Budget has approved revisions to three collections of information under the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulations.
Catherine B. Klion, Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026; 202-326-4024. (TTY/TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.)
On September 17, 2015 (at 80 FR 55742), the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) published a final rule amending its regulations on Filing, Issuance, Computation of Time, and Record Retention (29 CFR part 4000), Termination of Multiemployer Plans (29 CFR 4041A), and Duties of Plan Sponsor Following Mass Withdrawal (29 CFR 4281) to require mandatory e-filing of certain multiemployer plan notices starting 2016. The amendments affect three collections of information:
• Duties of Plan Sponsor Following Mass Withdrawal, OMB control number, 1212-0032.
• Notice of Insolvency, OMB control number 1212-0033.
• Termination of Multiemployer Plans, OMB control number 1212-0020.
PBGC submitted the revised collections of information for review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. On November 24, 2015, OMB approved the revised collections of information through November 30, 2018. 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.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of OMB approval of revised collections of information.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved revisions to two collections of information under the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulation on Reportable Events and Certain Other Notification Requirements.
Catherine B. Klion, Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026; 202-326-4024. (TTY/TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.)
On September 11, 2015 (at 80 FR 54980), the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) published a final rule amending its regulation on Reportable Events and Certain Other
• Reportable Events, OMB control number, 1212-0013 (covering subparts B and C of 29 CFR part 4043).
• Notice of Failure to Make Required Contributions, OMB control number 1212-0041 (covering subpart D of 29 CFR part 4043).
PBGC submitted the revised collections of information for review by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. On November 24, 2015, OMB approved the revised collections of information through November 30, 2018. 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the BX rules at Chapter VI, Section 6, entitled “Acceptance of Quotes and Orders,” specifically at Section 6(c) concerning Market Order Spread Protection.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to amend Chapter VI, Section 6 entitled “Acceptance of Quotes and Orders,” specifically, at paragraph (c) related to Market Order Spread Protection. This feature was adopted in 2012.
At this time, the Exchange is proposing to amend Section 6(c) which currently states, “System Orders that are Market Orders will be rejected if the NBBO is wider than a preset threshold at the time the order is received by the System.” The Exchange proposes to amend this sentence as follows: “System Orders that are Market Orders will be rejected if the
The current rule text does not reflect the possibility that orders will be re-priced to the current national best offer (for bids) or the current national best bid (for offers) and displayed at one minimum price variance above (for offers) or below (for bids) the national best price. The proposed rule text amends the current rule text to account for the results of repricing.
This rule change will correct the existing rule text to reflect current practice which accounts for repricing due to trade-through and locked and crossed market restrictions.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
Amending the current BX rule text for Market Order Spread Protection to account for repricing due to trade-through and locked and crossed market restrictions would provide Participants with the expected results of the Market Order Spread Protection feature. The Exchange believes that it is consistent with the Act to amend the rule text to reflect the possibility that orders will be re-priced to the current national best offer (for bids) or the current national best bid (for offers) and displayed at one
The Exchange believes that the amendment to the Market Order Spread Protection language does not otherwise create an impediment to a free and open market because the repricing due to trade throughs and locked and crossed markets exists today and serve to protect against trading through or locking or crossing another market. This proposal reflects the impact of repricing due to trade-through and locked and crossed market restrictions on the Market Order Spread Protection feature.
By reflecting the proper rule text to account for trade-through and locked and crossed market restrictions, the Exchange is providing Participants with additional information with which to anticipate the impact of the Market Order Spread Protection feature.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposal to amend the Market Order Spread Protection rule text to account [sic] repricing due to trade-through and locked and crossed market restrictions creates an undue burden on competition because it will serve to provide Participants with greater information to anticipate the impact of the Market Order Spread Protection feature. Today, Participants' orders are repriced due to trade-through and locked and crossed market restrictions. The purpose of this rule change is to protect market orders resting on the Order Book when the market is wide. This feature will be applied in a similar manner to all Participants on BX.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; does not impose any significant burden on competition; and by its terms does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; for the protection of investors; or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to update cross-references and make other non-substantive changes within FINRA rules, primarily as the result of approval of a new consolidated FINRA rule.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
FINRA is in the process of developing a consolidated rulebook (“Consolidated FINRA Rulebook”).
The proposed rule change would make several such changes, as well as other non-substantive changes unrelated to the adoption of rules in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook.
First, the proposed rule change would update rule cross-references to reflect the adoption of a consolidated equity research conflict of interest rule. On July 16, 2015, the SEC approved a proposed rule change to adopt NASD Rule 2711 as FINRA Rule 2241 (Research Analysts and Research Reports), with several modifications. As part of that rule filing, FINRA also amended FINRA Rule 9610, NASD Rule 1050, and Incorporated NYSE Rules 344 and 472, and deleted in their entirety the corresponding Incorporated NYSE Rule 351 and Incorporated NYSE Rule Interpretation 472.
Second, the proposed rule change would make technical changes to FINRA Rules 2272 (Sales and Offers of Sales of Securities on Military Installations)
Finally, the proposed rule change would also delete from the FINRA Manual the Series heading for NASD Rules 2400 (Commissions, Mark-ups and Charges) and 2700 (Securities Distributions) to reflect that the NASD Rules 2400
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness and has requested that the SEC waive the requirement that the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, so that FINRA can implement the proposed rule change to coincide with effective dates of the relevant consolidated FINRA rules. The implementation date for the proposed changes to FINRA Rules 1250, 2210, 5230, 6250, and 9217 and the proposed deletion of the NASD Rule 2400 and 2700 Series headings will be December 24, 2015. The implementation date for the proposed rule change to FINRA Rule 2272 will be March 30, 2016.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change brings clarity and consistency to FINRA rules without adding any burden on firms.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative before 30 days from
FINRA has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Such waiver will allow FINRA to implement the proposed rule change to coincide with the effective dates of the relevant consolidated FINRA rules. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing with the Commission.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”)(44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1) would require a clearing agency that provides CCP services to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to measure its credit exposures to its participants at least once each day, and limit its exposures to potential losses from defaults by its participants in normal market conditions so that the operations of the clearing agency would not be disrupted and non-defaulting participants would not be exposed to losses that they cannot anticipate or control. The purpose of the collection of information is to enable the clearing agency to monitor and limit its exposures to its participants.
Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) would require a clearing agency that provides CCP services to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to: (i) Use margin requirements to limit its credit exposures to participants in normal market conditions; (ii) use risk-based models and parameters to set margin requirements; and (iii) review the models and parameters at least monthly. The purpose of the collection of information is to enable the clearing agency to maintain sufficient collateral or margin.
Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3) would require a clearing agency that provides CCP services to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to maintain sufficient financial resources to withstand, at a minimum, a default by the participant family to which it has the largest exposure in extreme but plausible market conditions, provided that a registered clearing agency acting as a central counterparty for security-based swaps shall maintain additional financial resources sufficient to withstand, at a minimum, a default by the two participant families to which it has the largest exposures in extreme but plausible market conditions, in its capacity as a central counterparty for security-based swaps. The purpose of the collection of information is to enable the clearing agency to satisfy all of its settlement obligations in the event of a participant default.
Rule 17Ad-22(b)(4) would require a clearing agency that provides CCP services to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for an annual model validation consisting of evaluating the performance of the clearing agency's margin models and the related parameters and assumptions associated with such models by a qualified person who is free from influence from the persons responsible for the development or operation of the models being validated. The purpose of the collection of information is to enable the clearing agency to obtain an assessment of its margin model by a qualified, independent person.
Rule 17Ad-22(b)(5) would require a clearing agency that provides CCP services to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide the opportunity for a person that does not perform any dealer or security-based swap dealer services to obtain membership at the clearing agency to clear securities for itself or on behalf of other persons. The purpose of the collection of information is to enable more market participants to obtain indirect access to clearing agencies.
Rule 17Ad-22(b)(6) would require a clearing agency that provides CCP services to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to have membership standards that do not require that participants maintain a portfolio of any minimum size or that participants maintain a minimum transaction volume. The purpose of the collection of information is to remove unnecessary barriers to participation in clearing agencies that provide CCP services.
Rule 17Ad-22(b)(7) would require a clearing agency that provides CCP services to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide a person that maintains net capital equal to or greater than $50 million with the ability to obtain membership at the clearing agency, provided that such persons are able to comply with other reasonable membership standards, with any net capital requirements being scalable so that they are proportional to the risks posed by the participant's activities to the clearing agency. The rule also permits a clearing agency to provide for a higher net capital requirement (
Rule 17Ad-22(c)(1) would require that each fiscal quarter (based on calculations made as of the last business day of the clearing agency's fiscal quarter), or at any time upon Commission request, a clearing agency that performs CCP services shall calculate and maintain a record of the financial resources necessary to meet the requirement in Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3) and sufficient documentation to explain the methodology it uses to compute such financial resource requirement. The purpose of the collection of information is to enable the Commission to monitor the financial resources of clearing agencies that provide CCP services.
Rule 17Ad-22(c)(2) would require a clearing agency to post on its Web site an annual audited financial statement that must (i) be a complete set of financial statements of the clearing agency for the most recent two fiscal years of the clearing agency and be prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”), except that for a clearing agency that is a corporation or other organization incorporated or organized under the laws of any foreign country, the financial statements may be prepared according to U.S. GAAP or International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (“IFRS”); (ii) be audited in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board by a registered public accounting firm that is qualified and independent in accordance with Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X (17 CFR 210.2-01); and (iii) include a report of the registered public accounting firm that complies with paragraphs (a) through (d) of Rule 2-02 of Regulation S-X (17 CFR 210.2-02). The purpose of the collection of information is to enable the Commission to monitor the financial resources of clearing agencies that provide CCP services.
Rule 17Ad-22(d)(1) would require clearing agencies to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for a well-founded, transparent, and enforceable legal framework for each aspect of their activities in all relevant jurisdictions. The purpose of the collection of information is to help ensure that clearing agencies' policies and procedures do not cause confusion or legal uncertainty among their participants because they are unclear, incomplete or conflict with other applicable laws or judicial precedent.
The Commission believes that 10 registered clearing agencies will incur a total burden of approximately 8,029 hours annually.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information on respondents; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) up to January 6, 2016.
Direct comments to the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). You may submit comments by the following methods:
•
•
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Sophie Yan Gao, PRM/Admissions, 2025 E Street NW., SA-9, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20522-0908, who may be reached on (202) 453-9255 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The information requested will be used to verify the employment of Iraqi citizens and nationals for the processing and adjudication of other refugee, asylum, special immigrant visa, and other immigration claims and applications.
The method for the collection of information will be via electronic submission. The format for compiling the information will be the Department of State's eForms application which is currently used by over 36,000 Department users worldwide. Contracting Officers and Grants Officers will distribute by email to the contractors, grantees and cooperative agreement partners under their authority the DS-7655 form file and Cerenade e-Form filler installation instructions. Respondents, using the Cerenade filler, will complete the form and email the form file to their Contracting Officers or Grants Officer.
The Department of State will conduct an open meeting at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday January 26, 2016, in Room 5 of the DOT Conference Center, 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE., Washington, DC 20590. The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the third Session of the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Sub-Committee on Human Element, Training and Watchkeeping (HTW) to be held at the IMO Headquarters, United Kingdom, on February 1-5, 2016.
The agenda items to be considered include:
Members of the public may attend this meeting up to the seating capacity of the room. Upon request, members of
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of extension of comment period.
The FAA is extending the comment period for the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Part 139 Operating Certificate and Related Actions. In response to community requests, FAA is extending the comment period for 30 days, from December 11, 2015, to January 10, 2016.
The comment period for the proposed Draft EA made available for public review on October 20, 2015 is extended. Comments on the document must be received on or before January 10, 2016.
Any person desiring to review the Draft EA and to comment on the document may do so at the following locations: Paulding Northwest Atlanta Airport, 730 Airport Parkway, Dallas, Georgia 30157 or Paulding County Library, 1010 Memorial Drive East, Dallas, Georgia 30132.
Lisa Favors, Environmental Program Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 220, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747, (404) 305-6744,
The FAA is hereby extending the comment period for the following notice to allow the community more time to develop and submit their comments.
In the notice that issued in the
Comments can also be made online via the following Web sites:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Availability, Notice of Public Comment Period, and Request for Comment.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA; 42 United States Code 4321
On September 15, 2014, the FAA issued a Draft EA for public review and comment and received 54 written comments and 26 oral comments over the public comment and review period that was extended to November 1, 2014. After taking into consideration the nature of public comments received on the Draft EA, the FAA is providing the public with an opportunity to review and comment on updates and clarification information that have since been added to the EA in response to public comments. The FAA is issuing an updated version of the Draft EA for a second public review and comment period.
Stacey M. Zee, Federal Aviation Administration, c/o ICF International, 9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA 22031; email
The Second Draft EA is an updated version of the September 2014 Draft EA, and incorporates all public comments received on the Draft EA. All written and oral public comments received on the Draft EA, as well as the FAA's responses to these comments, can be found in Appendix R of the Second Draft EA. The FAA considered all public comments while preparing the Second Draft EA, and changes have been made to the EA where warranted.
The EA was prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the FAA modifying the Alaska Aerospace Corporation's (AAC's) Launch Site Operator License to include medium-lift launch capability at the Kodiak Launch Complex (KLC), a commercial launch site currently operated under a FAA Launch Site Operator License (LSO-03-008), which authorizes only small-lift operations. The Kodiak Launch Complex was renamed as Pacific Spaceport Complex Alaska, effective April 21, 2015. The EA keeps the name as KLC for continuity and ease of reviewing.
Expansion of launch capabilities at KLC would include the addition of new infrastructure necessary to support
The EA addresses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the FAA would not modify AAC's Launch Site Operator License to include medium-lift launch capability and AAC would not proceed with the construction of medium-lift launch support infrastructure at KLC. Existing launch activities for up to nine orbital small-lift class launches per year from the existing launch pads would continue.
The impact categories considered in the EA include air quality; compatible land use; Department of Transportation Act: Section 4(f); fish, wildlife, and plants; hazardous materials, pollution prevention, and solid waste; historical, architectural, archaeological, and cultural resources; light emissions and visual impacts; natural resources and energy supply; noise; socioeconomic, environmental justice, and children's environmental health and safety risk; water quality; and wetlands. The EA also considers the potential cumulative environmental impacts.
The FAA has posted the Second Draft EA on the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation Web site:
A paper copy and a CD version of the Second Draft EA may be reviewed for comment during regular business hours at the following libraries:
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition; grant of application for exemption.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant Daimler Trucks North America's (Daimler) application for an exemption to allow a Daimler employee to drive commercial motor vehicles (CMV) in the United States without having a commercial driver's license (CDL) issued by one of the States. The driver, Michael Seitter, will test-drive Daimler vehicles on U.S. roads to better understand product requirements for these vehicles in “real world” environments and verify results. He holds a valid German commercial license but lacks the U.S. residency necessary to obtain a CDL issued by one of the States. FMCSA believes that the process for obtaining a German commercial license is comparable to or as effective as the U.S. CDL requirements and ensures that this driver will likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would be obtained in the absence of the exemption.
This exemption is effective December 7, 2015 and expires December 7, 2017.
Mrs. Pearlie Robinson, Driver and Carrier
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Since 2012, FMCSA has granted five Daimler drivers similar exemptions [May 25, 2012 (77 FR 31422); July 22, 2014 (79 FR 42626); August 29, 2014 (79 FR 516910); March 27, 2015 (80 FR 16511)]. Each of these drivers held a valid German commercial license but lacked the U.S. residency required to obtain a CDL. FMCSA has concluded that the process for obtaining a German commercial license is comparable to or as effective as the U.S. CDL requirements and ensures that these drivers will likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be obtained in the absence of the exemption.
The Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) has the authority to grant exemptions from any of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) issued under chapter 313 or § 31136 of title 49, United States Code, to a person(s) seeking regulatory relief (49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b)). Prior to granting an exemption, the Secretary must request public comment and make a determination that the exemption is likely to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained in the absence of the exemption. Exemptions may be granted for a period of up to 2 years and may be renewed.
The FMCSA Administrator has been delegated authority under 49 CFR 1.87(e)(1) and (f) to carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. chapter 313 and subchapters I and III of chapter 311, relating, respectively, to the CDL program and to CMV programs and safety regulation.
Daimler applied for the same CDL exemption for Michael Seitter as for the previous five German drivers. Notice of the application was published on September 10, 2015 (80 FR 54655). Only one comment was received to the docket and the commenter neither opposed nor supported the exemption for Mr. Seitter. A copy of the Daimler request is in the docket identified at the beginning of this notice. The exemption allows Mr. Seitter to operate CMVs to support Daimler field tests to meet future vehicle safety and environmental requirements and to promote the development of technology and advancements in vehicle safety systems and emissions reductions. He will typically drive for no more than 6 hours per day for 2 consecutive days, and 10 percent of the test driving will be on two-lane state highways, while 90 percent will be on interstate highways. The driving will consist of no more than 200 miles per day, for a total of 400 miles during a two-day period on a quarterly basis.
Section 383.21 requires CMV drivers in the United States to have a CDL issued by a State. Mr. Seitter is a citizen and resident of Germany. Only residents of a State can apply for a CDL. Without the exemption, Mr. Seitter would not be able to test-drive prototype CMVs on U.S. roads.
Mr. Seitter holds a valid German commercial license and is an experienced operator of CMVs. In the application for exemption, Daimler also submitted documentation showing his safe German driving record.
According to Daimler, the requirements for a German-issued commercial license ensure that drivers meet or exceed the same level of safety as if these drivers had obtained a U.S. CDL. Mr. Seitter is familiar with the operation of CMVs worldwide and will be accompanied at all times by a driver who holds a U.S. CDL and is familiar with the routes to be traveled. FMCSA has determined that the process for obtaining a commercial license in Germany is comparable to that for obtaining a CDL issued by one of the States and adequately assesses the driver's ability to operate CMVs safely in the United States.
Based upon the merits of this application, including Mr. Seitter's extensive driving experience and safety record, and the fact that he has successfully completed the requisite training and testing to obtain a German commercial license, FMCSA concluded that the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, in accordance with § 381.305(a).
FMCSA grants Daimler and Mr. Michael Seitter an exemption from the CDL requirement in 49 CFR 383.23 to allow Mr. Seitter to drive CMVs in this country without a U.S. State-issued CDL, subject to the following terms and conditions: (1) The driver and carrier must comply with all other applicable provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) (49 CFR parts 350-399); (2) the driver must be in possession of the exemption document and a valid German commercial license; (3) the driver must be employed by and operate the CMV within the scope of his duties for Daimler; (4) at all times while operating a CMV under this exemption, the driver must be accompanied by a holder of a U.S. CDL who is familiar with the routes traveled; (5) Daimler must notify FMCSA in writing within 5 business days of any accident, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, involving this driver; and (6) Daimler must notify FMCSA in writing if this driver is convicted of a disqualifying offense under § 383.51 or § 391.15 of the FMCSRs.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by the FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if (1) Mr. Seitter fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption results in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would be inconsistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate or intrastate commerce that conflicts with or is inconsistent with
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA renews an exemption that enables motor carriers to mount lane departure warning system cameras and collision mitigation system cameras lower in the windshield of a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) than is currently permitted by the Agency's regulations. The Agency has concluded that granting this exemption renewal will maintain a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption. However, the Agency requests comments on this issue, especially from anyone who believes this standard will not be maintained.
This decision is effective November 18, 2015. Comments must be received on or before January 6, 2016.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) number FMCSA-2010-0166 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Luke W. Loy, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, MC-PSV, (202) 366-0676, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b)(1), FMCSA may renew an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a two-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption” (49 CFR 381.305(a)).
On November 18, 2011 (76 FR 71619), FMCSA published a notice of final disposition granting exemption applications from Con-way, Takata, and Iteris to allow the placement of lane departure warning system sensors lower in the windshield than is currently permitted by the Agency's regulations. In 2011, Iteris completed the sale of its vehicle sensors business to Bendix Commercial Vehicles Systems LLC (Bendix), which continued to sell the Iteris-developed lane departure warning systems. In May 2013, Bendix applied for a renewal of the November 2011 exemption. On November 25, 2013, FMCSA published a notice renewing this exemption until November 18, 2015 (78 FR 70396). While the November 2011 exemption granted relief to motor carriers using only the Takata and Iteris lane departure warning systems, the November 2013 exemption renewal extended the scope of the exemption to encompass motor carriers using any lane departure warning system provided that the sensor that is mounted in the windshield is (1) the same size or smaller than the Takata and Bendix sensors, and (2) mounted in the windshield in accordance with the provisions of the original exemption. Bendix is seeking renewal of the 2013 exemption, and requests that the scope of the exemption be extended to include its comparably-sized camera-based collision mitigation system.
The FMCSA has determined preliminarily that it is appropriate to renew the exemption for another two-year period pending a review of public comments in response to the application. The Agency believes that granting the exemption renewal to continue allowing the placement of lane departure warning system sensors lower in the windshield than is currently permitted by the Agency's regulations will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than the level of safety achieved without the exemption because (1) based on the technical information available, there is no indication that the lane departure warning system sensors would obstruct drivers' views of the roadway, highway signs and surrounding traffic; (2) generally, trucks and buses have an elevated seating position that greatly improves the forward visual field of the driver, and any impairment of available sight lines would be minimal; and (3) the location within the top two inches of the area swept by the windshield wiper and out of the driver's normal
The Agency hereby grants the exemption for a two-year period, ending November 17, 2017. During the temporary exemption period, motor carriers using lane departure warning systems and collision mitigation systems with sensors measuring 2 inches by 3.5 inches or smaller must ensure that the sensors are mounted not more than 50 mm (2 inches) below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, and outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals. The exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) Motor carriers and/or commercial motor vehicles fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
Interested parties possessing information that would demonstrate that CMVs operated by motor carriers using lane departure warning systems or collision mitigation systems are not achieving the requisite statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any such information and, if safety is being compromised or if the continuation of the exemption is not consistent with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31313(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a firm or person operating under the exemption. States may, but are not required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in intrastate commerce.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Denial of exemption application.
FMCSA denies an exemption application from the Entertainer Motorcoach Council (EMC) to allow its members to operate certain vehicles that do not meet the emergency exit requirements in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR). The FMCSRs require buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds, manufactured on or after September 1, 1994, to meet the emergency exit requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, “Bus Emergency exits and window retention and release,” in effect on the date of manufacture. FMVSS No. 217 requires side exits and at least one rear exit, but when the bus configuration precludes installation of an accessible rear exit, a roof exit is required in the rear half of the bus to provide a means of egress when the bus is overturned on either side. While EMC contends that “Entertainer Coaches” that do not have a rear or roof exit have emergency exit windows that open manually at the rear sides of the vehicle that provide openings large enough to admit unobstructed passage, it did not provide evidence to enable the Agency to conclude that motor carriers operating such vehicles could achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulation.
Mr. Luke W. Loy, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, MC-PSV, (202) 366-0676; Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Section 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA- 21) [Pub. L. 105-178, June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 401] amended 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e) to provide authority to grant exemptions from the FMCSRs. On August 20, 2004, FMCSA published a final rule (69 FR 51589) implementing section 4007. Under this rule, FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
EMC applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.62(a) to allow motor carriers to operate certain “Entertainer Coaches” that do not comply with the regulation's emergency exit requirements. A copy of the application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
Section 393.62(a) of the FMCSRs requires buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds, manufactured on or after September 1, 1994, to meet the emergency exit requirements of FMVSS No. 217 in effect on the date of manufacture. FMVSS No. 217 requires all buses (other than school buses) to provide unobstructed openings for emergency exit which collectively amount, in total square centimeters, to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions on the bus.
For buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds, FMVSS No. 217 requires that the unobstructed openings requirements be met by providing side exits and at least one rear exit. The rear exit must meet the requirements of S5.3-S5.5 of the standard when the bus is upright and when the bus is overturned on either side, with the occupant standing facing the exit. When the bus configuration precludes installation of an accessible rear exit, a roof exit that meets the requirements of S5.3-S5.5 of the standard when the bus is overturned on either side, with the occupant standing facing the exit, shall be provided in the rear half of the bus.
Neither the FMVSSs nor the FMCSRs define the term “Entertainer Coach.” In its application, EMC describes these vehicles as “motor vehicles constructed on a bus or MPV chassis which provide temporary residential accommodations, as evidenced by the presence of at least four of the following facilities: Cooking, refrigeration, self-contained bathroom, heating and/or air conditioning, a potable water supply including a faucet and sink, and a separate 110-125 volt electric power supply. This definition generally tracks the definition of `motor home' in the FMVSS and appropriately describes coaches that are built as temporary residential accommodations for the entertainment industry.”
In support of its application, EMC states:
EMC seeks this exemption because the rear exit and roof hatch requirements in FMVSS 217 and FMCSR 393.62(a) preclude the efficient and effective operation of Entertainer Coaches. As required by 49 CFR part 381.310(c)(5), Entertainer Coaches provide an equivalent level of safety when equipped with emergency exit windows at the rear sides of the vehicle that open manually and provide openings large enough to admit unobstructed passage. Entertainer Coaches are designed and used to provide temporary residential accommodations and, because the occupants are celebrities, their families and their staff, require an additional level of security to ensure security and protection for their occupants.
The requirement for rear exits in buses over 10,000 lbs. GVWR is intended to ensure a sufficient amount of rear egress for vehicles that carry a large number of passengers. The typical motorcoach is 45 feet in length and carry as many as 59 passengers. Entertainer Coaches, in contrast, typically carry less than 15 passengers, and many carry less than 10 passengers. EMC recognizes the importance of assuring access through the rear of the vehicles, even when the number of passengers is small. Such egress, however is readily available—as applied to Entertainer Coaches—by the emergency exit windows that come standard on the chassis generally used by the Entertainer Coach industry, the Prevost Entertainer 2000. Those windows allow for an egress area of 17″ tall by 24″ wide. The Prevost roof hatch allows for a similar egress area, 23″ x 23″. As a practical matter, the egress area is equivalent. As a result, Entertainer Coaches with emergency exit windows offer an equivalent level of safety as those with a roof hatch . . .
Entertainer Coaches have an exemplary safety experience. Unlike the typical motorcoach passengers, these vehicle occupants are well acquainted with the vehicle. In particular, they are fully aware of the location and need for fast exit in the event of an emergency. Although fires can and do occur on these vehicles, the small number of occupants ensures safe exit from either the front or the back of the vehicle without the need for additional roof hatches. Such fires, furthermore, typically come from the back of the bus and occur when the bus is upright, further offsetting the practical need for a rear exit that meets the specific requirements of FMVSS 217.
EMC states that “If the exception is not granted, the entertainers will suffer serious disruption to their tour schedules. Denial of the exemption will also lead to significant economic impacts due to the failure of the entertainers to be able to appear as scheduled. The substantial disruption is not merited by any insistence on the strict construction of any overly broad requirement that does not take the unique circumstances of Entertainer Coaches into account.”
On May 1, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of the EMC application and asked for public comment (80 FR 25002). The Agency received five comments, all opposed to EMC's exemption application.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), the United Motorcoach Association (UMA), and an anonymous commenter all cited similar concerns in opposing the exemption application. The commenters noted that EMC had failed to demonstrate that an equivalent level of safety would be maintained in certain crash scenarios with only side emergency exit windows, but no rear and/or roof exits as required by FMVSS No. 217, specifically in a rollover crash scenario. For example, the NTSB stated “A vehicle lying on its side with exits located only on the sides would be difficult to evacuate from because the only available emergency exits would be above the occupants. This could require an occupant to climb or be lifted as high as the width of the vehicle. The NTSB does not consider that emergency exits on two sides of a vehicle provide an alternative for emergency evacuation equivalent to the current requirements, which include either roof or rear emergency exits.” Similarly, CVSA stated “In the event of a crash that leaves the bus on its side, the side window emergency exits and the entry door (which is usually counted as an emergency exit) will likely be unusable, which is why the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) require the rear window or roof emergency exits. The exemption request from EMC does not effectively demonstrate how an equivalent level of safety can be maintained.” The Advocates stated that “[t]he Applicants have not met the statutory and regulatory requirements for the exemption, including failing to provide an analysis of the safety impacts the requested exemption may cause and failing to provide information on the specific countermeasures to be undertaken to ensure an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved absent the requested exemption.”
On May 10, 1972, NHTSA adopted FMVSS No. 217, a new motor vehicle safety standard establishing minimum requirements for bus window retention and release to reduce the likelihood of passenger ejection in accidents and enhance passenger exit in emergencies (37 FR 9394). While the 1970 NPRM did not include provisions regarding roof exits, the final rule permitted installation of an alternate roof exit when the bus configuration precludes
FMCSA agrees with the commenters. The EMC application did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that an Entertainer Coach without rear and/or roof emergency exits would be able to provide an equivalent level of safety when compared to a compliant vehicle, specifically in a rollover crash scenario. The intent of the requirements for rear and roof emergency exits in S5.2.2.2 of FMVSS No. 217 is quite clear, in that those exits are required to meet the emergency exit release, opening, and identification requirements of the standard “when the bus is overturned on either side, with the occupant standing facing the exit.” Without the required rear and/or roof exits, emergency egress in rollover crash scenarios will likely be limited, possibly leading to increased numbers of fatalities and injuries in such crashes.
Based on the above, FMCSA denies the EMC exemption application. FMCSA is unable to determine—as required for an exemption by 49 CFR 381.305(a)—that motor carriers would be able to maintain a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level achieved without the exemption.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Denial of exemption application.
FMCSA denies an exemption application from Atwood Forest Products, Inc. (Atwood) to allow the use of a camera system installed at the sides and rear of up to 15 of its commercial motor vehicles (CMV) in lieu of rear-vision mirrors as specified in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR). Section 393.80 of the FMCSRs requires every bus, truck, and truck tractor to be equipped with two rear-vision mirrors, one at each side, firmly attached to the outside of the motor vehicle, and so located as to reflect to the driver a view of the highway to the rear along both sides of the vehicle. All such mirrors must, at a minimum, meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, “Rearview mirrors,” in effect at the time the vehicle was manufactured. While Atwood wanted to install the camera system on its vehicles for use in an evaluation study to evaluate the safety and economic benefits of eliminating outside mirrors, it did not provide evidence to enable the Agency to conclude that motor carriers operating vehicles without any rear-vision mirrors could achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulation.
Mr. Mike Huntley, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-PSV, (202) 366-5370; Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Section 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA- 21) [Pub. L. 105-178, June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 401] amended 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e) to provide authority to grant exemptions from the FMCSRs. On August 20, 2004, FMCSA published a final rule (69 FR 51589) implementing section 4007. Under this rule, FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
Atwood applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.80 to allow the use of a camera system installed at the sides and rear of CMVs in lieu of rear-vision mirrors as specified in the FMCSRs. A copy of the application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
Section 393.80 of the FMCSRs currently requires every bus, truck, and truck tractor to be equipped with two rear-vision mirrors, one at each side, firmly attached to the outside of the motor vehicle, and so located as to reflect to the driver a view of the highway to the rear along both sides of the vehicle. All such mirrors must, at a minimum, meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 111 in effect at the time the vehicle was manufactured. The purpose of FMVSS No. 111 is to reduce the number of deaths and injuries that occur when the driver of a motor vehicle does not have a clear and reasonably unobstructed view to the rear.
In its application, Atwood states:
Atwood Forest Products, Inc. is making this request because we are coordinating device development and installation of rear cameras in up to fifteen (15) commercial motor vehicles and trailers. The camera equipment to be installed is going to be located at rear of trailers and at sides of motor vehicles. A monitor is to be located in the cab . . . Regulations currently require that mirrors be installed on each side of [a] tractor. Our system will remove outside mirrors and install cameras at the rear of trailers and cabs and motor vehicles with monitors inside the cabs of tractors.
Atwood contends that without the proposed temporary exemption, it will not be able to deploy cameras and monitors in its vehicles because they will be fined for violating the current
On August 28, 2014, FMCSA published a notice of the Atwood application and asked for public comment (79 FR 51391). The Agency received four comments.
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (“Advocates”) opposed the exemption application, stating:
Atwood provides absolutely no analysis of the safety impacts the exemption may have. Atwood provides no actual data regarding safety performance at all. In fact, the applicant failed to provide even a rudimentary study to confirm that the proposed systems would provide performance in accordance with FMVSS 111.
Atwood has provided no evidence that their proposed exemption would ensure safety and mitigate the concerns regarding rearview visibility which spurred the FMCSR requirement and the underlying FMVSS. Likewise, the applicant fails to cite any research on the performance of the proposed systems, the visibility coverage offered, the possibility of driver distraction, or even usability studies to confirm that the proposed monitor and camera systems would allow a driver to operate a vehicle as safely as while using traditional, compliant, mirrors.
The Application is, therefore, insufficient on its face, as Atwood neither performed nor included any form of safety analysis in their application nor provided any form of explanation as to how the applicant would ensure that the proposed exemption will achieve an equivalent level of safety as required by both the statute and regulation. The requirement for a safety analysis is part of the statute and regulations governing the granting of exemptions precisely to ensure that exemptions which increase risk and decrease safety are not permitted.
Two anonymous commenters opposed the exemption application, citing concerns that the camera-based system may be prone to operational failure in the event of electrical outages. One of the commenters stated that the camera-based system could be used “IN ADDITION to rearview mirrors, but not IN LIEU of” the required mirrors.
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) stated “This system quite possibly could have additional safety benefits when utilized by a well-trained driver. However, there are significant questions regarding this application, both in terms of the technology proposed by Atwood, and the method that Atwood and Safety Track would use to evaluate the performance of the camera systems. As such, OOIDA urges the FMCSA to only move forward with granting the exemption request under significant restrictions.”
OOIDA—like the anonymous commenters—noted concerns regarding the reliability of the camera-based system due to its reliance on electronic components. OOIDA encouraged FMCSA to consider mandating some type of redundancy in the system if the exemption application is granted. OOIDA stated:
Mandating the inclusion of one external mirror on each side of the cab (even if smaller than current standards) could provide a level of protection against electronics failure. Requiring redundancy in the electronics system might provide an acceptable level of protection. Rather than one monitor, two monitors with independent wiring systems may accomplish a lower risk of failure.
While current mirrors are susceptible to environmental conditions that lessen their effectiveness (rain, road, spray, fog) they never fail completely. We encourage the consideration of this exemption request to utilize appropriate technology, but caution against complete reliance on technology (without redundancy)—at least until a suitable time where the technology has proven reliability in the very harsh conditions that a CMV operates within.
In addition, OOIDA echoed Advocates' concerns that Atwood had failed to provide “any detailed description of the proposed analysis of the effectiveness of the system.”
Specifically with respect to CMVs, FMVSS No. 111 requires vehicles with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds (excluding trailers) to have mirrors installed on both sides of the vehicle, located so as to provide the driver a view to the rear along both sides of the vehicle and adjustable both in the horizontal and vertical directions to view the rearward scene. On April 7, 2014, and to satisfy the mandate of the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007 (“K.T. Safety Act”), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule amending FMVSS No. 111 to expand the required field of view for all passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, and low-speed vehicles with a GVW of less than 10,000 pounds (79 FR 19178). Specifically, the rule specifies an area behind the vehicle which must be visible to the driver when the vehicle is placed into reverse and other related performance requirements. NHTSA noted that it anticipates vehicle manufacturers will use rearview video systems and in-vehicle visual displays in the near term to meet the requirements of the rule.
However, the K.T. Safety Act specifically excluded all vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, motorcycles, and trailers. NHTSA declined to extend scope of the rule in response to public comments recommending that the rule cover larger vehicles not contemplated by the K.T. Safety Act. NHTSA stated:
Finally, we also decline to extend today's final rule to cover trailers, garbage trucks, and other vehicles not contemplated by the K.T. Safety Act. While we acknowledge that many of these vehicles may also have significant blind zones, we have concentrated our research and rulemaking efforts on the vehicles mandated by Congress. We believe that, by focusing on the vehicles types covered in the K.T. Safety Act, this rulemaking is able to more appropriately address the types of crashes that Congress sought to avoid. To include and accommodate vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs or more (many of which are used for commercial purposes), the agency may be required to utilize a significantly different approach with different requirements and test procedures that may not be as closely tailored to avoiding the types of crashes contemplated by the K.T. Safety Act. Further, we note that backover crashes involving vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 lbs represent a significant majority of both fatalities and injuries. As this rulemaking has continuously focused exclusively on vehicles covered by the K.T. Safety Act, to introduce requirements regarding other vehicles in today's final rule would raise questions regarding the sufficiency of the scope of notice of this rulemaking. Thus, today's final rule declines to introduce such requirements at this time.
The purpose of FMVSS No. 111 is to reduce the number of deaths and injuries that occur when the driver of a motor vehicle does not have a clear and reasonably unobstructed view to the rear. While both Advocates and OOIDA note that the use of camera-based technology for rear visibility may have merit for use in CMVs, and such technologies will be used by light vehicle manufacturers to meet the newly adopted requirements of FMVSS No. 111, the Atwood application did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the use of a camera system installed at the sides and rear of CMVs
Based on the above, FMCSA denies the Atwood exemption application. FMCSA is unable to determine—as required for an exemption by 49 CFR
FMCSA notes that while Atwood's use of the camera-based system in lieu of the rear vision mirrors required via § 393.80 is denied, § 393.3 of the FMCSRs expressly permits the use of additional equipment and accessories (such as the camera-based rear vision system), not inconsistent with or prohibited by the FMCSRs, provided that such equipment and accessories do not decrease the safety of operation of the motor vehicles on which they are used.
On November 17, 2015, CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), filed with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to abandon an approximately 0.66-mile rail line between milepost BUA 15.72 and milepost BUA 16.38, the end of the line, on the Mt. Storm Railroad Track, in Grant County, W.Va. (the Line). The Line includes the station of OPSL 56150 (FSAC 76373), which will remain open, and traverses United States Postal Service Zip Code 26739.
According to CSXT, the Western Maryland Railway Company, a predecessor to CSXT, leased approximately 16.38 miles of track and land (between mileposts BUA 0.0 and 16.38), from the predecessor of the Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO), the only shipper on the Line, in order to serve VEPCO's Mt. Storm Power Station. CSXT states that, even though it does not own the Line, it is the only common carrier operating over the Line, and it is seeking to abandon the Line in order to terminate its common carrier obligation.
Further, CSXT states that VEPCO operates over the industry track east of milepost BUA 16.38. In addition, CSXT and VEPCO have agreed to amend their lease agreement, excluding the final 0.66 miles of the Line from the lease in order for VEPCO to construct and operate a new coal yard and rapid coal dumper. CSXT states that, upon a grant of abandonment authority, CSXT will reclassify the Line as yard track for VEPCO's use, and the land and track will be returned to VEPCO. Finally, CSXT states that it will not salvage the Line.
According to CSXT, the Line does not contain federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in CSXT's possession will be made available promptly to those requesting it.
The interest of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set forth in
By issuing this notice, the Board is instituting an exemption proceeding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final decision will be issued by March 4, 2016.
Any offer of financial assistance (OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will be due no later than 10 days after service of a decision granting the petition for exemption. Each OFA must be accompanied by a $1,600 filing fee.
All interested persons should be aware that, following abandonment, the Line may be suitable for other public use, including interim trail use. Any request for a public use condition under 49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be due no later than December 24, 2015. Each trail request must be accompanied by a $300 filing fee.
All filings in response to this notice must refer to Docket No. AB 55 (Sub-No. 746X) and must be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001; and (2) Louis E. Gitomer, 600 Baltimore Ave., Suite 301, Towson, MD 21204. Replies to the petition are due on or before December 24, 2015.
Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs and Compliance at (202) 245-0238 or refer to the full abandonment regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) at (202) 245-0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
An environmental assessment (EA) (or environmental impact statement (EIS), if necessary) prepared by OEA will be served upon all parties of record and upon any other agencies or persons who comment during its preparation. Other interested persons may contact OEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). EAs in abandonment proceedings normally will be made available within 60 days of the filing of the petition. The deadline for submission of comments on the EA generally will be within 30 days of its service.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; 12-month petition finding; request for comments.
We, NMFS, have completed comprehensive status reviews under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for seven foreign marine elasmobranch species in response to a petition to list those species. These seven species are the daggernose shark (
Comments on this proposed rule must be received by February 5, 2016. Public hearing requests must be made by January 21, 2016.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0161, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Maggie Miller, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources (OPR), (301) 427-8403 or Chelsey Young, NMFS, OPR, (301) 427-8491.
On July 15, 2013, we received a petition from WildEarth Guardians to list 81 marine species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This petition included species from many different taxonomic groups, and we prepared our 90-day findings in batches by taxonomic group. We found that the petitioned actions may be warranted for 27 of the 81 species and announced the initiation of status reviews for each of the 27 species (78 FR 63941, October 25, 2013; 78 FR 66675, November 6, 2013; 78 FR 69376, November 19, 2013; 79 FR 9880, February 21, 2014; and 79 FR 10104, February 24, 2014). This document addresses the findings for 7 of those 27 species: daggernose shark (
We are responsible for determining whether species are threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as
When we consider whether a species might qualify as threatened under the ESA, we must consider the meaning of the term “foreseeable future.” It is appropriate to interpret “foreseeable future” as the horizon over which predictions about the conservation status of the species can be reasonably relied upon. The foreseeable future considers the life history of the species, habitat characteristics, availability of data, particular threats, ability to predict threats, and the reliability to forecast the effects of these threats and future events on the status of the species under consideration. Because a species may be susceptible to a variety of threats for which different data are available, or which operate across different time scales, the foreseeable future is not necessarily reducible to a particular number of years.
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us to determine whether any species is endangered or threatened due to any of the following factors: the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Under section (4)(b)(1)(A), we are also required to make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available, after conducting a review of the species' status and after taking into account efforts being made by any state or foreign nation to protect the species.
Status reviews for the petitioned species addressed in this finding were conducted by a contractor for the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center and are available at
We considered the best available information and applied professional judgment in evaluating the level of risk faced by each of the seven species. For each extinction risk analysis, we evaluated the species' demographic risks (
The demographic risk analysis, mentioned above, is an assessment of the manifestation of past threats that have contributed to the species' current status and informs the consideration of the biological response of the species to present and future threats. For this analysis, we considered the demographic viability factors developed by McElhany
In conducting the threats assessment, we identified and summarized the section 4(a)(1) factors that are currently operating on the species and their likely impact on the biological status of the species. We also looked for future threats (where the impact on the species has yet to be manifested) and considered the reliability to which we could forecast the effects of these threats and future events on the status of these species.
Using the findings from the demographic risk analysis and threats assessment, we evaluated the overall extinction risk of the species. Because species-specific information (such as current abundance) is sparse, qualitative “reference levels” of risk were used to describe extinction risk. The definitions of the qualitative “reference levels” of extinction risk were as follows: “Low Risk”—a species is at a low risk of extinction if it exhibits a trajectory indicating that it is unlikely to be at a moderate level of extinction risk in the foreseeable future (see description of “Moderate Risk” below). A species may be at low risk of extinction due to its present demographics (
Below we summarize information from the status review reports and information we compiled on the seven foreign marine elasmobranch species, analyze extinction risk of each species, assess protective efforts to determine if they are adequate to mitigate existing threats to each species, and propose determinations based on the status of each of the seven foreign marine elasmobranch species.
The daggernose shark (
The daggernose shark occurs in the central western Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea and has been reported along the coasts of Venezuela, Trinidad, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana, and northern Brazil (Lessa
Little is known about the diet and feeding of the daggernose shark. Bigelow and Schroeder (1948) and Compagno (1984) suggest that they feed on schooling fishes, such as clupeids, sciaenids, herring, anchovies, and croakers. It is speculated that their small eyes and elongated snout emphasize the use of their rostral sense organs over eyesight when hunting in turbid waters (Compagno 1984). In Marajó Bay in Brazil, daggernose sharks were found eating catfish (Family Ariidae) (Barthem 1985).
Growth rates of daggernose sharks are similar between males and females, with an estimated growth rate from birth to age 1 calculated to be approximately 14 cm/year (Lessa
The reproductive cycle of daggernose sharks in Brazil is synchronized with the rain cycle. The rainy season runs from January to June and the dry season runs from July to December. A study by Lessa
Studies examining the genetics of the species or information on its population structure could not be found.
Based on the above life history parameters, and following methods in Cortés (2002) for estimating survivorship, Casselberry and Carlson (2015a) estimated productivity (as intrinsic rate of population increase, “r”) at 0.004 year
In Brazil, daggernose sharks were historically found in the states of Amapá, Pará, and Maranhão, and were first formally recorded in surveys from the 1960s in the state of Maranhão (Lessa 1986). In 1999, daggernose sharks were documented as occurring in two Marine Conservation Areas in northern Brazil, the Parque Nacional Cabo Orange in Amapá, and the Reentrâncias Maranhenses in Maranhão (Lessa
Very little information is available on the distribution and abundance of the daggernose shark outside of Brazil. While undated catch records exist across the entire coastline of French Guiana, records are scarce throughout Suriname, Guyana, and Trinidad and Tobago (Bigelow and Schroeder 1948; Springer 1950; Compagno 1988; Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) 2013). Additionally, although Lessa
We reviewed the best available information regarding historical, current, and potential threats to the daggernose shark species. We find that the main threat to this species is overutilization for commercial purposes. We consider the severity of this threat to be exacerbated by the species' natural biological vulnerability to overexploitation, which has led to significant declines in abundance and subsequent extirpations from areas where the species was once commonly found. We find current regulatory measures inadequate to protect the species from further overutilization. Hence, we identify these factors as additional threats contributing to the species' risk of extinction. We summarize information regarding these threats and their interactions below according to the factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. Available information does not indicate that habitat destruction or modification, disease, predation or other natural or manmade factors are operative threats on these species; therefore, we do not discuss these factors further in this finding. See Casselbury and Carlson (2015a) for discussion of these ESA section 4(a)(1) threat categories.
Based on historical catch data and trends, the primary threat to daggernose sharks is overutilization in artisanal fisheries. Given its rather shallow depth distribution, in Brazil, the species is bycaught in the artisanal gillnet fisheries for Spanish mackerel (
Artisanal fisheries operating off Brazil continue to exert significant fishing pressure on the daggernose shark, which is likely contributing to fishing mortality rates that historically resulted in the substantial decline of the species. As such, overutilization continues to be a threat to the species as these fisheries are still highly active throughout its range. In fact, in the North region of Brazil (which includes the States of Amapá and Pará), the artisanal sector accounts for more than 80 percent of the total landings from this region and represents around 40 percent of the total artisanal landings for the entire country. These fisheries tend to be concentrated in areas where the daggernose shark would most likely occur, including the Amazon River estuary, small estuaries and bays, and shallow coastal waters within the extensive mangrove area that covers the northern coast of Brazil (Vasconcello
These artisanal fishing practices and effort levels, which caused declines in daggernose shark populations off Brazil, are likely similar in Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana (which comprises the other half of the species' range). These countries have a substantial artisanal fishing sector presence, with catches from artisanal fishing comprising up to 80 percent of the total fish landings. In French Guiana, sharks alone comprised 40.4 percent of the annual artisanal landings for the local market (Harper
As noted above, this essentially unregulated artisanal fishing throughout the Atlantic Caribbean, employing unselective net gear and concentrated in inshore coastal waters where daggernose sharks would primarily occur, has led to the overexploitation of many marine species, including sharks. However, there is virtually no information available on daggernose shark catches from the Caribbean countries in the daggernose shark range. These countries report general shark landings to the FAO but, in addition to these catches being significantly underestimated (on the order of 2.6 times for Trinidad and Tobago (Mohammed and Lindop 2015); 1.6 times for Guyana (Macdonald
Throughout the species' range, species-specific protection for daggernose sharks is only found in Brazil. In 2004, the daggernose shark was first listed in Annex I of Brazil's endangered species list: “Lista Nacional Oficial de Espécies da Fauna Ameaçadas de Extinção—Peixes e Invertebrados Aquáticos” (Silva 2004). An Annex I listing prohibits the catch of the species except for scientific purposes, which requires a special license from the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Resources (IBAMA) (Silva 2004). This protection was renewed in December 2014, when the daggernose shark was listed as “critically endangered” on the most recent version of the Brazilian endangered species list approved by the Ministry of the Environment (Directive No 445). “Critically endangered” on this list is defined as a species that presents an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future due to profound environmental changes or high reduction in population, or significant decrease in the taxon's range. In addition to the landing prohibition, daggernose sharks also receive protection when they occur within two of Brazil's marine protected areas (MPAs): The Parque Nacional Cabo Orange and the Reentrâncias Maranhenses (Lessa
Although Brazil has a number of regulations in place to protect endangered or threatened species, like the ones described above for daggernose sharks, it is generally recognized that these regulations are poorly enforced, particularly within artisanal fisheries (Lessa
In December 2014, the Brazilian Government's Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation approved an FAO National Plan of Action (NPOA) for the conservation of sharks (hereafter referred to as FAO NPOA-sharks) for Brazil (No. 125). The plan considers the daggernose shark to be one of the country's 12 species of concern and recommends a moratorium on fishing with the prohibition of sales until there is scientific evidence in support of recovery (Lessa
Outside of Brazil, there is limited information on shark fishing regulations or their adequacy for protecting daggernose sharks from overutilization. In Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago, gillnet fisheries are restricted to using nets of 900 ft or less with no more than a 15-foot depth; however, currently, there are no minimum size restrictions or catch quotas for sharks in either country (Shing 1999). As mentioned previously, both countries have open access fisheries (however, in Guyana the open access fishery only applies to the artisanal gillnet fishery) (FAO 2005a, 2006). In the late 1990s a fisheries management plan was drafted for Trinidad and Tobago, which prohibited the use of monofilament gillnets less than 4.75″ stretch mesh and developed a licensing system (Shing 1999); however, no further details about the plan, including effectiveness or enforcement of these regulations, could be found. According to Casselberry and Carlson (2015a), in the summer of 2013, Guyana's Fisheries Department within the Ministry of Agriculture passed a 5-year Fisheries Management Plan for Guyana to run from 2013 to 2018, with one aspect of this plan meant to address shark fishing, but no further details could be found at this time. Enforcement of existing fishery regulations is also lacking due to insufficient resources, with minimal control over the fisheries resulting in increasing competition and conflicts among fishermen and between fishing fleets and, consequently, overfishing of marine resources (FAO 2005a, 2005b, 2006, 2008). No other pertinent information could be found on shark fishing regulations or their adequacy in controlling the exploitation of sharks, and more specifically daggernose sharks.
Although accurate and precise population abundance and trend data for the daggernose shark are lacking, best available information provides multiple lines of evidence indicating that this species currently faces a high risk of extinction. Below, we present the demographic risk analysis, threats assessment, and overall risk of extinction for the daggernose shark.
There is a significant lack of abundance information for
The daggernose shark has extremely low productivity. Litter sizes range from 2-8 pups, with a 1-year gestation period and a year of resting between pregnancies. In other words, annual fecundity averages only 1-4 pups because of the species' biennial reproductive periodicity. Using these life history parameters, Casselberry and Carlson (2015a) estimated a productivity (as the intrinsic rate of population increase) of r = 0.004 year
Very limited information is available regarding spatial structure and connectivity of the daggernose shark populations. The best available information suggests the daggernose shark has a very restricted range, one of the smallest of any elasmobranch species, and, as such, an increased vulnerability to extinction from environmental or anthropogenic perturbations. In addition, the substantial declines in the Brazilian population and subsequent absence of the species in areas it was previously known to occur, as well as its rarity throughout the rest of its range, suggest the species likely exists as patchy and small populations, which may limit connectivity. However, there is not enough information to identify critically important populations to the taxon as a whole, or determine whether the rates of dispersal among populations, metapopulations, or habitat patches are presently posing a risk of extinction.
The loss of diversity can increase a species' extinction risk through decreasing a species' capability of responding to episodic or changing environmental conditions. This can occur through a significant change or loss of variation in life history characteristics (such as reproductive fitness and fecundity), morphology, behavior, or other genetic characteristics. Although it is unknown if
The primary threat to the daggernose shark is overutilization in artisanal fisheries. In Brazil, the species is bycaught in the artisanal gillnet fisheries for Spanish mackerel and king weakfish. Historically, the species comprised up to around 70 percent of the artisanal catch during the Amazonian summer in the State of Pará, and was caught in large numbers by the artisanal gillnet fisheries operating on the Maranhão coast in Brazil. However, given the extremely low productivity of the species and vulnerability to depletion, this level of exploitation resulted in substantial declines (estimated at over 90 percent) to the point where the species is no longer found in fish markets or observed in trawl and research survey data. The artisanal gillnet fisheries that were responsible for this decline are still active throughout the species' range and likely exerting similar fishing pressure that historically resulted in the substantial decline of the daggernose shark populations. In fact, together, the artisanal landings from the North region of Brazil (which includes the States of Amapá and Pará) and Northwest region (which includes the States of Maranhão south to Bahia), the areas where daggernose sharks were once historically abundant, represent over 80 percent of the total artisanal landings for the entire country, indicating the importance and, hence, likely continuation of this type of fishing in these regions. Notably, the king weakfish fishery, which was reported as one of the two main artisanal gillnet fisheries responsible for bycatching daggernose sharks, remains one of the most important fisheries in Brazil.
Artisanal gillnet fisheries are also active in the other parts of the species' range, including Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana, with likely similar fishing practices. Although landings data from these countries are unknown, the available information suggests that artisanal fishing pressure is high and that the species has been taken in small numbers by local fishermen in these countries, with daggernose sharks historically sold in markets in Trinidad and likely Guyana. Given the species' susceptibility to depletion from even low levels of fishing mortality, it is highly likely that overutilization by artisanal fisheries operating throughout the species' range is a threat that is significantly contributing to its risk of extinction.
In 2004, the daggernose shark was listed on Brazil's endangered species list, and as of 2014, was classified as “critically endangered.” Additionally, it is listed as one of 12 species of concern under Brazil's FAO NPOA-sharks. However, the implementation and effectiveness of the recommendations outlined in this plan remain uncertain, with the best available information indicating that current regulatory measures in Brazil to protect vulnerable species are poorly enforced, particularly in artisanal fisheries (the fishery sector that poses the biggest threat of overutilization of the species). In addition, there appears to be a lack of adequate fishing regulations to control the exploitation of the daggernose shark in the other parts of its range, and, as such, the inadequacy of existing regulatory measures is a threat that further contributes to the extinction risk of the species.
Although there is significant uncertainty regarding the current abundance of the species, the species' population growth rate and productivity estimates indicate that the species has likely suffered significant population declines (of up to 90 percent) throughout its range and will continue to decrease without adequate protection from overutilization. The species' restricted coastal range, combined with its recent (2004-2009) absence in areas where it was once commonly found, as well as its present rarity throughout the rest of its range (with the last record of the species from 1999) indicate potential local extirpations and suggest an increased likelihood that the species is strongly influenced by stochastic or depensatory processes. This vulnerability is further exacerbated by the present threats of overutilization and inadequacy of existing regulatory measures that will significantly contribute to the decline of the existing populations (based on its demographic risks) into the future, compromising the species' long-term viability. Therefore, based on the best available information and the above analysis, we conclude that
With the exception of the recommendations within Brazil's FAO NPOA-sharks (discussed above), we were unable to find any other information on protective efforts for the conservation of daggernose sharks in Brazil, Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Suriname, or French Guiana that would potentially alter the extinction risk for the species. We seek additional information on other conservation efforts in our public comment process (see below).
Based on the best available scientific and commercial information as presented in the status review report and this finding, we find that the daggernose shark is presently in danger of extinction throughout its range. We assessed the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors and conclude that that the species faces ongoing threats from overutilization and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms throughout its range. The species' natural biological vulnerability to overexploitation and present demographic risks (
The Brazilian guitarfish (
The Brazilian guitarfish is found along the coast of South America in the southwestern Atlantic from Bahia, Brazil to Mar del Plata, Argentina (Figueiredo 1977; Lessa and Vooren 2005, 2007; GBIF 2013). Newborns and
There is very little information on the diet or feeding behavior of Brazilian guitarfish. Refi (1973) recorded the stomach contents of six individuals caught in Mar del Plata, Argentina and found that stomachs contained the Patagonian octopus (
Based on a yearly vertebral annulus formation in September, Vooren
Size at maturity for Brazilian guitarfish is between 90 cm and 120 cm TL for both sexes; the smallest pregnant females recorded were between 91-92 cm TL, and all captured females larger than 119 cm TL were pregnant (Lessa
Studies examining the genetics of the species or information on its population structure could not be found.
Total natural mortality for Brazilian guitarfish was estimated by Caltabellota (2014) using an age at maturity of 5 years (
The Brazilian guitarfish is distributed along the coast of South America, from Bahia, Brazil to Mar del Plata, Argentina. The species' center of distribution lies between 28° and 34° S. and also corresponds to the area where it is most abundant. This area is known as the Plataforma Sul, which includes the continental shelf of southern Brazil and extends from Cabo de Santa Marta Grande (28°36′ S.) to Arroio Chuí (33°45′ S.). In historical bottom trawl surveys between latitudes 28°00′ S. and 34°30′ S.,
Throughout the rest of its range, there is little information on the abundance of
We reviewed the best available information regarding historical, current, and potential threats to the Brazilian guitarfish species. We find that the main threat to this species is overutilization for commercial purposes. We consider the severity of this threat to be exacerbated by the species' natural biological vulnerability to overexploitation, which has led to significant declines in abundance of all life stages, particularly neonates. We find current regulatory measures inadequate to protect the species from further overutilization. Hence, we identify these factors as additional threats contributing to the species' risk of extinction. We summarize information regarding these threats and their interactions below according to the factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. Available information does not indicate that habitat destruction or curtailment, disease, predation or other natural or manmade factors are operative threats on these species; therefore, we do not discuss these factors further in this finding. See Casselbury and Carlson (2015b) for discussion of these ESA section 4(a)(1) threat categories.
Based on historical catch data and trends, the primary threat to Brazilian guitarfish is overutilization in industrial and artisanal fisheries. Before landings were prohibited in Brazil in 2004, the Brazilian guitarfish was considered to be the only economically important species of the order Rajiformes in southern Brazil, where they were fished and caught in otter trawls, pair trawls, shrimp trawls, beach seines, and bottom gillnets (Haimovici 1997; Mazzoleni and Schwingel 1999; Martins and Schwingel 2003; Lessa and Vooren 2005). Commercial catches of the Brazilian guitarfish primarily occurred between 28° S.-34° S. in Brazil, where the species is most heavily concentrated (Martins and Schwingel 2003; Lessa and Vooren 2005). The pair and simple trawl fleets, which operate on the inner continental shelf and outer shelf, respectively, were responsible for the majority of the commercial
From 2000 to 2002, increases in CPUE of
In addition to the contribution of the industrial fisheries to the overutilization of the species, artisanal fisheries were also known for catching large quantities of the Brazilian guitarfish in beach seines and fixed nets (Miranda and Vooren 2003; Lessa and Vooren 2005). In fact, before the prohibition of the species, artisanal fisheries, combined with the industrial pair trawl fisheries, caught over 70 percent of the Brazilian guitarfish (Miranda and Vooren 2003). Because these artisanal fisheries operate on the inshore pupping grounds of the species, the guitarfish catch consists primarily of aggregations of pregnant females (around 98 percent of the catch) (Lessa and Vooren 2005). In the 1980s, annual artisanal catches of guitarfish wavered around 600 t-800 t but declined soon after (Lessa, 1982; Miranda and Vooren 2003). In 1992, artisanal landings were estimated at 330 t and by 1997, landings dropped to only 125 t, a decrease that was attributed to a reduction in catches specifically of
The substantial abundance declines of
Overall, based on the above commercial and artisanal fishing data, it is estimated that over the period of 1975-1986, around 100,000 mature
Overutilization still remains a threat to the species as fishing by the industrial and artisanal fleets continues to occur at high efforts on the Plataforma Sul and especially within important nursery habitats for the species (Vooren
Like the daggernose shark, the Brazilian guitarfish was also listed on Brazil's endangered species list in 2004, and as of 2014, was classified as “critically endangered.” In 2007, Lessa and Vooren noted that the 2004 prohibition on catching the species was gradually becoming more effectively enforced, but genetic studies indicate that enforcement was still relatively poor as recently as 2009. Of 267 guitarfish samples that were collected at ports throughout southeastern and southern Brazil between 2008 and 2009, 55.8 percent were genetically identified as Brazilian guitarfish (De-Franco
Although the Brazilian guitarfish occurs in several MPAs within Brazilian waters, including APA de Cananéia-Iguape-Peruíbe (São Paulo; 234,000 hectares), PARNA do Superagui (Parana; 33,988 hectares), REBIO do Arvoredo (Santa Catarina; 17,600 hectares) and RESEX Marinha do Pirjubaé (Santa Catarina; 1,712 hectares) (Rosa and Lima 2005), these MPAs only protect the species from exploitation when they occur within these areas. In addition, the coverage of these MPAs compared to
Another regulation in place in Brazil to control the exploitation of marine resources is a prohibition on trawl fishing within three nautical miles (nm) from the coast of southern Brazil. This prohibition may help decrease fishery-related mortality of
Like the daggernose shark, the Brazilian guitarfish is one of Brazil's 12 species of concern identified in their FAO NPOA-sharks. The plan recommends a moratorium on fishing with a prohibition of sales until there is scientific evidence in support of recovery, and proposes a fishing exclusion area over a large region of the coast of Rio Grande do Sul at depths of 20 m to protect nursery areas (No 125, Lessa
Similar to Brazil, Uruguay also lists the Brazilian guitarfish as a species of high priority in its FAO NPOA-sharks (Domingo
The best available information provides multiple lines of evidence indicating that the
There is very limited information regarding abundance estimates for
Lessa and Vooren (2005) estimated the growth rate of
Under natural mortality, Caltabellota (2014) estimated that the population would increase by 9 percent each year, doubling every 7.41 years. However, if individuals of the species are fished before reaching maturity (assumed to be 5 years), the Brazilian guitarfish population will decline by 25 percent every 2.73 years (Caltabellota 2014). Given the historical declines in CPUE and levels of neonate and juvenile landings, the species was likely subject to this exploitation scenario and subsequently experienced a negative population growth rate to the point where the population collapsed after 1986. With the continued fishing pressure by the mullet fisheries operating in the nursery habitats and the industrial fisheries on the Plataforma Sul, the available data on growth rate and productivity of the species indicates that current exploitation levels will likely continue to cause population declines in the species, with no information to suggest this trend is reversing.
The species is thought to have a continuous distribution along the
The loss of diversity can increase a species' extinction risk through decreasing a species' capability of responding to episodic or changing environmental conditions. This can occur through a significant change or loss of variation in life history characteristics (such as reproductive fitness and fecundity), morphology, behavior, or other genetic characteristics. Although it is unknown if
Present threats to the species include overutilization by fisheries and inadequate regulatory mechanisms. The artisanal and industrial fisheries that historically contributed to the decline in
Although trawl fishing in Brazil is prohibited within 3 nm of the coast (<10 m depth), the shallow nursery areas, where neonates are found year-round and where adults are concentrated during the pupping and mating season, are still accessible to and heavily fished by artisanal fisheries using gillnets and beach seines. For example, in the mullet fishery, fishermen use beach seines to trap the mullets; however, due to the low selectivity of the fishing gear, these seines may also catch large numbers of juvenile and pregnant female guitarfish as evidenced by the historical data from beach seine operations on the coast of Rio Grande do Sul (Miranda and Vooren 2003; Lessa and Vooren 2005; Vooren
In addition to the threat from artisanal fishing operations, juveniles and adults of the species are also at risk of bycatch-related mortality by the industrial trawl and gillnet fleets operating off Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina. These fleets focus trawling efforts on the inner and outer continental shelf (between 29° S. and 34° S.), essentially covering the entire seasonal adult migratory corridor. Of concern is the fact that the
In July 2010, the State of São Paulo, Brazil, declared the stock of Brazilian guitarfish collapsed due to intense exploitation. Despite the species' listing under Brazil's endangered species list since 2004, which effectively prohibits catching this species,
Although there is significant uncertainty regarding the current abundance of the species, the best available information indicates that the species has suffered significant historical population declines, with no indication that these trends have stabilized or reversed. Based on the species' demographic risks, without adequate protection, these severely depleted populations are likely to be strongly influenced by stochastic or depensatory processes. This vulnerability is further exacerbated by the present threats of overutilization and inadequacy of existing regulatory measures that continue to contribute to the decline of the existing populations, compromising the species' long-term viability. Therefore, based on the best available information and the above analysis, we conclude that the
With the exception of the recommendations within Brazil and Uruguay's FAO NPOA-sharks plans discussed above, we were unable to find any other information on protective efforts for the conservation of Brazilian guitarfish in Brazil, Uruguay, or Argentina that would potentially alter the extinction risk for the species. We seek additional information on other conservation efforts in our public comment process (see below).
Based on the best available scientific and commercial information as presented in the status review report and this finding, we find that the Brazilian guitarfish is presently in danger of extinction throughout its range. We assessed the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors and conclude that the species faces ongoing threats from overutilization and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms throughout its range. The species' natural biological vulnerability to overexploitation and present demographic risks (
Smoothhound sharks are members of the family Triakidae and genus
The striped smoothhound is one of the most distinctive
The striped smoothhound is a demersal shark species, found at depths between 1 m and 250 m along the continental shelf and slope of the Southwestern Atlantic in Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina (Soto 2001). The species has a very restricted coastal distribution, ranging from Santa Catarina in southern Brazil to Bahía Blanca in Buenos Aires Province, Argentina, which covers about 1,500 km of coastline (Lopez Cazorla and Menni 1983; Vooren and Klippel 2005b; Lorenz
Striped smoothhounds display clear ontogenetic (
Knowledge of the striped smoothhound's diet is limited. Soto (2001) studied the stomach contents of 17 specimens captured off Parcel da Solidão in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Crustaceans were the most abundant prey group, making up 82.4 percent of the diet, while fishes and mollusks were present in lower numbers (11.8 percent and 5.9 percent, respectively). Box crabs (
There is scant information on striped smoothhound life history. Age and growth studies are not available and conflicting data exist for sizes at birth and maturity in Rio Grande do Sul. For example, one study reported that size at birth is between 39 cm and 43 cm TL, and that sexual maturity is reached at 130 cm and 135 cm TL for males and females, respectively (Vasconcellos and Vooren 1991). More recent studies report smaller sizes, with birth estimated between 35 cm and 38 cm TL and size at maturity estimated at 119 cm TL for males and 121 cm TL for females (Soto 2011; Vooren and Klippel 2005b). The smaller size at maturity seen in the more recent studies could be a
Striped smoothhound have placental viviparous reproduction (Vooren 1997) and a gestation period that lasts between 11 and 12 months (Soto 2001; Lorenz
Studies examining the genetics of the species or information on its population structure could not be found.
The striped smoothhound is generally thought to have low fecundity, with a long gestation time (~1 year), and an average of only eight pups (range = 4-14 pups). Information regarding natural mortality rates or the intrinsic rate of population increase (
The striped smoothhound is distributed from Santa Catarina in southern Brazil to the Bahía Blanca in Buenos Aires Province, Argentina. While striped smoothhound were once considered a dominant permanent resident in Rio Grande do Sul in the early 1970s and 1980s, and displayed predictable abundance changes throughout the year (Vooren 1997), they are now considered sporadic in this area and rare in the northern and southern portions of their range (Soto 2001). Prior to fisheries exploitation, it is thought that the striped smoothhound had naturally low abundance based on their relatively low frequency of occurrence in fishery research surveys (Vooren and Klippel 2005b). For example, in research trawl surveys on the Plataforma Sul, conducted from 1972-2005 with over 1,500 hauls, striped smoothhound occurred at a frequency of only 10 percent in the trawl hauls from the 10 m-100 m depth range (Vooren and Klippel 2005b) and comprised only 2 to 4 percent of the total elasmobranch CPUE for the period of 1980-1984. Despite this low frequency of occurrence, Vooren and Klippel (2005b) note that neonates of the species were relatively abundant in the 1980s in the summer and commonly observed along the 10,688 km of the Rio Grande do Sul coastline. In fact, for the period of 1981-1985, estimated CPUE from artisanal fisheries operating off Rio Grande do Sul ranged from 1.9 individuals/haul for beach seines to 18.5 individuals/haul for gillnet fishing gear. In research trawl surveys conducted in shallow waters of 10 m-20 m depths in 1981 and 1982, juvenile
In Uruguay and Argentina, current catches by fishermen are infrequent. Additionally, trawl surveys conducted along the coastal region of the Bonaerensean (Buenos Aires) District of northern Argentina and Uruguay indicate a 96 percent decline in biomass of the species between 1994 and 1999 (Hozbor
We reviewed the best available information regarding historical, current, and potential threats to the striped smoothhound species. We find that the main threat to this species is overutilization for commercial purposes. We consider the severity of this threat to be exacerbated by the species' natural biological vulnerability to overexploitation, which has led to significant declines in abundance of all life stages, particularly neonates. We find current regulatory measures inadequate to protect the species from further overutilization. Hence, we identify these factors as additional threats contributing to the species' risk of extinction. We summarize information regarding these threats and their interactions below according to the factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. Available information does not indicate that habitat destruction, modification or curtailment, disease, predation or other natural or manmade factors are operative threats on these species; therefore, we do not discuss these factors further in this finding. See Casselbury and Carlson (2015c) for discussion of these ESA Section 4(a)(1) threat categories.
The greatest threat to striped smoothhound is overutilization in commercial fisheries, particularly by those fisheries operating on the Plataforma Sul off Rio Grande do Sul. The Plataforma Sul comprises approximately one-third of the species' geographic distribution and is the area where the species was historically most concentrated. In fact, striped smoothhound were commonly caught as bycatch in the 1970s and 1980s on the Plataforma Sul in Brazil, albeit in low numbers (Soto 2001; Vooren and Klippel 2005b). Estimates of CPUE of
The intense coastal commercial and artisanal fishing off Rio Grande do Sul that takes place in nearshore waters along the coast (see additional discussion of these fisheries in the Brazilian guitarfish assessment) has likely had, and continues to have, the greatest impact on the species. These coastal fisheries primarily use beach seines, gillnet and trawl gear in the nearshore locations where striped smoothhound neonates and juveniles are found year-round. This level of fishing effort exerts constant pressure on the species before it reaches maturity (Soto 2001; Vooren and Klippel 2005b), and consequently, affects the recruitment of juvenile sharks into the population (Vooren 1997). Significant declines in neonate and juvenile populations have already been observed. Between the areas of Chuí and Torres of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, for example, neonates were abundant in the summer in the 1980s, along the coast from depths of 2 m-20 m, representing an area of occupancy of about 10,688 km
In addition to the coastal artisanal and industrial fisheries, the intense fishing by the Plataforma Sul trawl fisheries that operate between the coastal waters and inner continental shelf (see description of the pair trawl fleet in the Brazilian guitarfish assessment) also affected and continues to impact the reproductive capacity of the striped smoothhound population in southern Brazil. These trawl fisheries, whose area of operation intersects with the spring migration of female
Outside of Brazil, off Uruguay and Argentina, striped smoothhound are caught sporadically as bycatch in gillnets, bottom longlines, and trawls in fisheries targeting Brazilian flathead (
Like the daggernose shark and Brazilian guitarfish, the striped smoothhound is also listed as critically endangered under Annex I of Brazil's endangered species list. Aside from authorized conservation research purposes, the capture, transport, storage, and handling of striped smoothhounds is prohibited. There is also a prohibition of trawl fishing within three nautical miles of the coast of southern Brazil, although the enforcement of this prohibition has been noted as difficult
In contrast to Brazil, Uruguay's FAO NPOA-sharks does list the striped smoothhound as a species of high priority (Domingo
The best available information provides multiple lines of evidence indicating that the
While there are no quantitative abundance estimates available for
Although CPUE data are lacking from other parts of the species' range, with catches of striped smoothhound characterized as sporadic and rare in Uruguay and Argentina, respectively, survey data suggest that the migratory population has also experienced similar declines. Based on trawl survey data collected from along the Bonaerensean District of northern Argentina and Uruguay, the population of striped smoothhounds suffered an estimated 96 percent decline in biomass between 1994 and 1999. No other information on abundance or trends was available from this portion of the species' range. However, considering the species was of naturally low abundance prior to exploitation, and fishing pressure has historically been high (particularly on neonates in nursery areas and juvenile and adults on the inner shelf, including on both the resident and migratory populations) with no indications that this pressure has ceased, it is likely that the species has continued to suffer declines throughout its range.
Very little information is known about the life history of
The striped smoothhound has a very restricted coastal range of only 1,500 km. On the Plataforma Sul off southern Brazil, there is thought to be a permanent, year-round resident population. Vooren and Klippel (2005b) note that the area occupied by this population represents one third of the species' total range, and that the conservation of this resident population is integral to the conservation of the taxon as a whole, indicating the relative importance of this population to the species' survival. However, there is also thought to be a migratory population that is present on the Plataforma Sul in the winter that returns to Uruguay and
The loss of diversity can increase a species' extinction risk through decreasing a species' capability of responding to episodic or changing environmental conditions. This can occur through a significant change or loss of variation in life history characteristics (such as reproductive fitness and fecundity), morphology, behavior, or other genetic characteristics. Although it is unknown if
The primary threat to striped smoothhounds is overutilization in commercial fisheries. Although not targeted in any fisheries throughout its range, due to its presumed naturally low abundance, striped smoothhounds are caught as part of the multispecies smoothhound fisheries and as bycatch in fisheries for other species such as drums, flounders, and mullets. While adult striped smoothhounds were once commonly caught as bycatch in the 1970s and 1980s in Brazil, albeit in low numbers, they are now considered rare in commercial catches. Additionally, intensive fishing by gillnet and trawl fisheries in shallow coastal areas where juveniles and neonates occur results in constant fishing pressure on the species before it reaches maturity, negatively affecting recruitment of neonates into the population. In fact, the historical data on the abundance of newborns in coastal waters provide strong evidence that a 95 percent reduction in annual production of neonates occurred from 1984 to 2005 as a result of constant fishing pressure in important coastal nursery areas. Adult striped smoothhounds are also susceptible to these fisheries during their spring migration into these same coastal areas for pupping, and are at risk of being caught as bycatch by the industrial gillnet and trawl fleets operating on the inner shelf throughout the rest of year. In fact, the level of fishing mortality on the migratory wintering population on the Plataforma Sul may have led to the observed declines in the striped smoothhound population found off the coast of northern Argentina. Thus, the intense fishing effort by the commercial and artisanal fisheries on the Plataforma Sul appear to be negatively affecting the reproductive capacity and growth of the population throughout its range.
In 2004, the species was listed on Brazil's endangered species list, which effectively prohibited the capture of this species. As of 2014, the species was classified as “critically endangered” on this list. Although the species is not identified as one of 12 species of concern under Brazil's FAO NPOA-sharks, the plan calls for fishing closures in areas of <20 m deep that would provide protection to neonates and juveniles, as well as other closures to protect adult aggregations. In Uruguay, the striped smoothhound is listed as a species of high priority on its FAO NPOA-sharks (Domingo
Given the continued and significant fishing effort by the industrial trawl fleet and artisanal gillnet on the Plataforma Sul, contributing to the fishing mortality of the resident population as well as the wintering migratory population, and inadequacy of existing regulatory measures to control the exploitation of the marine resources throughout the species' range, the best available information suggests that overutilization of the species by industrial and artisanal fisheries is a threat significantly contributing to its risk of extinction.
Although there is significant uncertainty regarding the current status of the species, the best available information indicates that the species has suffered significant declines throughout its range due to overutilization in industrial and artisanal fisheries. The species' very restricted coastal range, with data to suggest it has undergone a decline of over 90 percent in one third of this range, combined with its present rarity throughout the rest of its range, make it particularly susceptible to local extirpations and significantly increases its risk of extinction from environmental and anthropogenic perturbations or catastrophic events. With no indication that abundance trends have stabilized or reversed in recent years, nor any indication that regulatory measures have been implemented or are adequately enforced to protect the Plataforma Sul neonates in important nursery areas, the local reproducing adult population, or the migratory population from unsustainable fishing mortality levels, it is likely that the species continues to suffer from population declines. Based on the species' demographic risks, these severely depleted populations are likely to be strongly influenced by stochastic or depensatory processes without adequate protection. This vulnerability is further exacerbated by the present threats of overutilization and inadequacy of existing regulatory measures that continue to contribute to the decline of the existing populations, compromising the species' long-term viability. Therefore, based on the best available information and the above analysis, we conclude that
With the exception of the recommendations within Brazil and Uruguay's FAO NPOA-sharks, we were unable to find any other information on protective efforts for the conservation of striped smoothhound sharks in Brazil, Uruguay, or Argentina that would potentially alter the extinction risk for the species. We seek additional information on other conservation efforts in our public comment process (see below).
Based on the best available scientific and commercial information as presented in the status review report and this finding, we find that the striped smoothhound is presently in danger of extinction throughout its range. We assessed the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors and conclude that the species faces ongoing threats from overutilization and inadequacy of existing regulatory
The narrownose smoothhound shark has a slender body, similar in form to other triakids, and a short head (Compagno 1984; Rosa and Gadig 2010). The species has large eyes and a snout that is bluntly angular (Compagno 1984) with a narrow internostril distance (Rosa and Gadig 2010). Like
The narrownose smoothhound is found in the southwestern Atlantic from southern Brazil to southern Argentina between 22° S. and 47°45′ S. (Belleggia
Like striped smoothhounds, a portion of the narrownose smoothhound population is migratory. In the winter, juveniles, adults, and gravid females migrate north into Brazilian waters and remain there from April to November (Haimovici 1997; Vooren 1997; Oddone
Olivier
The narrownose smoothhound has an estimated lifespan of 20.8 and 24.7 years for males and females, respectively (Hozbor
Narrownose smoothhound sharks are non-placental and reported to be yolk-sac viviparous (Hamlett
In terms of population structure, only one genetics study has been conducted to determine if multiple stocks occur throughout the species' range (Pereya
The annual population growth rate for narrownose smoothhound in Brazil was calculated to be 1.058 between 1980 and 1994 (Massa
The narrownose smoothhound is the most abundant and widely distributed triakid in the Argentine Sea (Van der Molen and Caille 2001), with densities off Rio de la Plata as high as 44 t/nm
We reviewed the best available information regarding historical, current, and potential threats to the narrownose smoothhound shark. We find that the main threat to this species is overutilization for commercial purposes. We consider the severity of this threat to be reduced by the species' natural biological ability to withstand higher levels of exploitation. However, we find that historical and present levels of utilization have exceeded the species' biological capacity to quickly recover from exploitation, and have subsequently led to significant declines in abundance. We also find that current regulatory measures are inadequate to protect the species from further overutilization. Hence, we identify these factors as additional threats contributing to the species' risk of extinction. We summarize information regarding these threats and their interactions below according to the factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. Available information does not indicate that habitat destruction or modification, disease, predation or other natural or manmade factors are operative threats on these species; therefore, we do not discuss these factors further in this finding. See Casselbury and Carlson (2015d) for discussion of these ESA section 4(a)(1) threat categories.
The primary threat to the narrownose smoothhound is overutilization in commercial and artisanal fisheries as the species is intensely fished throughout its entire range, including within its nursery grounds. In Argentina,
In the artisanal fisheries in Argentina, the narrownose smoothhound is a highly targeted shark, particularly in the coastal areas between 36° S. and 41° S. latitudes. In Anegada Bay, a known nursery area for the shark, the smoothhound artisanal fishing season used to operate from October 15 to December 15, with fishermen exclusively using bottom gillnets to catch the sharks. In 2004,
In Uruguay, landings of smoothhounds (primarily
In the AUCFZ, narrownose smoothhounds are the most heavily exploited shark (Segura and Milessi 2009). Though maximum permitted catch limits in the AUCFZ are set by both countries (Argentina and Uruguay), population declines have been seen throughout this portion of the narrownose smoothhound's range, mostly due to increased fishing effort on juveniles of the population (Colautti
In Brazil,
Similar to the trends seen in the striped smoothhound within the coastal waters off southern Brazil, neonates of
As discussed in both the Brazilian guitarfish and striped smoothhound assessments, fishing by the industrial and artisanal fleets continues to occur at high efforts on the Plataforma Sul, and especially within the important coastal nursery and inner shelf habitats for the species (which overlap with both
In Argentina, there are few regulations in place to protect narrownose smoothhound nursery habitat. For example, Ría Deseado (~40 km; 47°45′ S.; 65°55′ W.), the southernmost limit of the narrownose smoothhound's range, is designated as a nature preserve and protects the local population from fishery-related mortality (Chiaramonte and Pettovello 2000). It has been identified as a nursery area, where breeding adults, neonates, and juveniles enter Ría Deseado waters in the late spring and stay until late summer (Chiaramonte and Pettovello 2000). Anegada Bay (39°50′51″ S. to 40°43′08″ S. and 62°28′44″ W. to 62°03′00″ W.), Argentina, another known narrownose smoothhound nursery area, is also protected from fishing operations. The bay was previously designated as a multiple use zone reserve in 2000, which did little to protect the
In Uruguay, regulations that likely contribute to decreasing the fishery-related mortality of the species include a summer trawling ban in 25 m to 50 m depths between La Paloma and Chuy and specific fishery area closures in the spring, summer, and autumn on the Uruguayan continental shelf, designated to protect juvenile hake (
Both Argentina and Uruguay list the narrownose smoothhound as a high priority species within their respective FAO NPOA-sharks (Domingo
In the AUCFZ, the area where current fisheries information indicates narrownose smoothhounds may likely be most abundant and heavily targeted, the Comisión Técnica Mixta del Frente Marítimo (CTMFM) is in charge of managing fish stocks and does so through the implementation of catch limits and fishery closures. For example, every year, the CTMFM implements a prohibition against
In terms of the direct management of
In Brazil, the narrownose smoothhound is listed on Annex 1 of Brazil's endangered species list and classified as critically endangered (Directive N° 445). As described in previous species assessments, an Annex 1 listing prohibits the catch of the species except for scientific purposes, which requires a special license from IBAMA. There is also a prohibition of trawl fishing within three nautical miles from the coast of southern Brazil, although the enforcement of this prohibition has been noted as difficult (Chiaramonte and Vooren 2007). In addition, the species is still susceptible to being caught as bycatch in the legally permitted coastal gillnet fisheries and offshore trawl and gillnet fisheries and vulnerable to the associated bycatch mortality (Lessa and Vooren 2007). Additionally, unlike the striped smoothhound, the narrownose smoothhound is listed as one of the 12 species of concern under Brazil's FAO NPOA-sharks and would also benefit from the proposed fishing closures and other management measures outlined in the plan. However, as mentioned previously, the plan was only just approved as of December 2014, and will not be fully implemented for another 5 years. Thus, the implementation and effectiveness of the recommendations outlined in the plan remain uncertain, with the best available information indicating that current regulatory measures in Brazil to protect vulnerable species are poorly enforced.
The best available information provides multiple lines of evidence indicating that the
There is limited information available regarding quantitative abundance estimates of narrownose smoothhound throughout its range. However, biomass estimates as well as trends in commercial landings and CPUE data can provide some insight into the abundance of the species. The narrownose smoothhound is the most abundant and widely distributed triakid in the Argentine Sea. In Argentina, the narrownose smoothhound is mainly landed by the commercial fleet operating in the Buenos Aires coastal region, and represents up to 14.5 percent of landings (Carozza
In Uruguay, there is conflicting information regarding the trend in catches of
In Brazil,
Overall, best available information suggests the species is likely in decline in parts of its Argentine and Uruguayan range, and has experienced a significant decrease in abundance in its winter migrant population in Brazil. Although present abundance estimates are unknown, the significant declines in both CPUE and landings of the species throughout its range, as well as the chronological reduction of the species' average size (based on landings data) and size of maturity, suggest overexploitation of the species and a declining abundance trend. Targeting of the species will continue, given its demand in the market and importance in both the artisanal and commercial fisheries in the region and, combined with the high fishing pressure in the species' nursery areas, the species may continue to experience population declines throughout its range, with abundance levels that will likely contribute significantly to its extinction risk in the foreseeable future.
The narrownose smoothhound has an estimated lifespan of 20.8 years and 24.7 years for males and females, respectively, with a maximum recorded size of 110 cm TL. Information regarding size and age of maturity estimates vary throughout the species' range, but the most recent estimate from Hozbor
Very limited information is available regarding spatial structure and connectivity of
The loss of diversity can increase a species' extinction risk through decreasing a species' capability of responding to episodic or changing environmental conditions. This can occur through a significant change or loss of variation in life history characteristics (such as reproductive fitness and fecundity), morphology, behavior, or other genetic characteristics. In terms of population structure, only one genetics study has been conducted to determine if multiple stocks occur throughout the species' range (Pereya
In addition to genetic homogeneity, the study found that nucleotide diversity in
The primary threat to narrownose smoothhounds is overutilization in commercial and artisanal fisheries, with the species both targeted and bycaught throughout its range. In Argentina,
In the AUCFZ, where
In Uruguay, narrownose smoothhounds are both targeted in artisanal fisheries and caught as bycatch. Despite the difficulties in identifying species composition of shark catches and discrepancies in catch information, data indicate landings of
In southern Brazil, the intensive fishing effort on the Plataforma Sul has likely led to overutilization, and consequently, significant declines in the winter migrant population of
Based on the best available information, it is evident that
While there is considerable uncertainty regarding the species' current abundance, the best available information indicates that the species has experienced population declines of significant magnitude throughout its range. Most concerning is the evidence to suggest
With the exception of the recommendations within the FAO NPOA-sharks discussed above, we were unable to find any other information on protective efforts for the conservation of narrownose smoothhound in Argentina, Uruguay, or Brazil that would potentially alter the extinction risk for the species. We seek additional information on other conservation efforts in our public comment process (see below).
Based on the best available scientific and commercial information as presented in the status review report and this finding, we find that the narrownose smoothhound is not presently in danger of extinction throughout its range, but likely to become so in the foreseeable future. We assessed the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors and conclude that the species faces ongoing threats from overutilization and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms throughout its range. Due to the species' relatively fast population growth rate (for elasmobranchs) and likely high historical abundance, it can withstand moderate rates of exploitation. However, based on the declining trends in the species' abundance, its low genetic diversity, the observed decreases in average size of the species in catches as well as the decreases in size at maturity in areas where it is most heavily exploited, best available data suggest that the fishing mortality rate is higher than what the species can sustain. Although the species' present level of abundance does not appear to be at such a low level to trigger the onset of depensatory processes, the species' observed downward trend is unlikely to reverse in the foreseeable future as a result of continued overutilization. We therefore conclude that the species is on a trajectory indicating that it will more likely than not be at risk of extinction in the foreseeable future. We also found no evidence of protective efforts for the conservation of narrownose smoothhound that would reduce the level of extinction risk faced by the species. We therefore propose to list the narrownose smoothhound as a threatened species.
Angel sharks are members of the family Squatinidae. Both the spiny angel shark (
The spiny angel shark (
The spiny angel shark is found in the southwestern Atlantic Ocean from Espírito Santo, Brazil, to Rawson, Argentina (Milessi
Spiny angel sharks are thought to be sit-and-wait predators, lying motionless on the bottom until prey passes closely overhead. The prey is then grasped by an upward bite (Vooren and da Silva 1991). Based on diet studies, the spiny angel shark appears to prefer bony fishes but will also feed on crustaceans, molluscs, and polychaetes (Vögler
Although ontogenetic and seasonal differences in diet have been observed for the species (Vögler
Very few age and growth studies on the spiny angel shark could be found. In terms of length frequency distributions of spiny angel sharks, individuals caught in the San Matías Gulf, Argentina showed a modal peak of 75-90 cm TL for males and 80-95 cm TL for females, with no evidence of size dimorphism (Awruch
Studies of spiny angel sharks farther north, in Rio de la Plata and El Rincón, Argentina, found that males from El Rincón at a given length were significantly heavier than males from Rio de la Plata, while females showed no significant differences in the length-weight relationship (Colonello
In southern Brazil, spiny angel sharks reach a maximum length of 92 cm TL and age of 12 years (Vooren and Klippel 2005a). According to the characteristics for the
In terms of reproduction, the spiny angel shark has only one functional ovary (Vooren and da Silva 1991), with the maturation of ovarian follicles lasting about 2 years before ovulation, followed by gestation (Colonello
Pupping occurs during the spring and summer months (September-March) in depths less than 20 m (Vooren 1997; Miranda and Vooren 2003). Litter sizes for the species range between 2 and 8 pups (Colonello
Recently, Garcia
Information on natural mortality rates or the intrinsic rate of population increase of the spiny angel shark is currently unavailable.
In northern Argentina, spiny angel sharks are considered to be a eurythermic coastal shelf species with highest abundances on the outer coastal shelf between depths of 28.9 m and 49.6 m (Jaureguizar
In the AUCFZ, spiny angel shark distribution appears to be influenced by temperature, with clear avoidance of water temperatures below 5 °C and above 20 °C (Vögler
In southern Brazil, spiny angel sharks are considered a resident species (Vooren 1997). From 1980-1984 spiny angel sharks were common year round on the southern shelf (at depths between 10 m and 100 m) from Solidão to Chuí, with some areas recording CPUE densities as high as 50 kg/h (Vooren and Klippel 2005a). According to Vooren and Klippel (2005a), a portion of the
In general, very few abundance estimates are available for the species. According to Chiaramonte and Vooren (2007), the spiny angel shark is likely composed of smaller, localized populations throughout its range. In Argentinian waters, fishery surveys and commercial data provide limited indication of abundance and trends in this part of the species' range. In 1993, for example, the abundance of spiny angel sharks in the San Matías Gulf, Argentina (southern Argentina) was estimated to be 192.53 t (Argentina FAO NPOA-sharks 2009); however, the San Matías Gulf makes up a very small portion (approximately 9.6 percent) of the spiny angel shark's range and no recent abundance estimates could be found. Surveys of the continental shelf in northern Argentina (between 34° S. and 41° S.; approximately 20 percent of the species' range), conducted during the spring when abundance of spiny angel sharks is highest, provided estimates of mean biomass density of 0.518 t/nm
In Brazil, there are no biomass estimates for the species and most of the fisheries data for angel sharks is grouped into a general
We reviewed the best available information regarding historical, current, and potential threats to the spiny angel shark. We find that the main threat to this species is overutilization for commercial purposes. We consider the severity of this threat to be somewhat reduced by the species' relatively high abundance in the southern portions of its range; however, its demographic characteristics (including very low productivity, limited connectivity, and low genetic diversity) increase the susceptibility of the species to depletion and, with the continued fishing pressure on the species, places it at an increased risk of extinction. We summarize information regarding these threats and their interactions below according to the factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. Available information does not indicate that habitat destruction or curtailment, disease, predation or other natural or manmade factors are
The primary threat to spiny angel sharks is overutilization in commercial and artisanal fisheries as the species is heavily fished throughout its entire range, including within its nursery grounds. As noted previously, the vast majority of fisheries information available on angel sharks from Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil is reported as
In Argentina, there is no directed fishery for angel sharks, but they are captured in multispecies artisanal shark fisheries and are considered a valuable bycatch species (Chiaramonte 1998; Bornatowski
In Argentina, in the 1990s, angel sharks were considered commercially important bycatch, particularly in the Necochea school shark (
Current fishing pressure remains high on the spiny angel shark in Argentinian waters. In fact, recent landings of angel sharks, and just from the AUCFZ portion of the species' Argentinian range, suggest total Argentinian landings have likely been of similar magnitude as those totals reported in the 1990s (CTMFM 2015). In 2010, total landings in the AUCFZ amounted to 3,763 t and were over 3,000 t in 2011. In 2012, landings were 2,736 t and by 2013 and 2014 dropped to below 2,300 t (CTMFM 2015). Although landings have remained high in recent years, they also appear to be on a declining trend. Given that catch levels in the 1990s, which resulted in declines of up to 58 percent in the species' abundance, remained at similar levels in 2010 and 2011, suggests that the decrease in landings may likely be a result of a declining spiny angel shark population as opposed to a decrease in fishing effort. In fact, since 2006, the total number of vessels in Argentina's fishing fleet has remained fairly stable (OECD 2014), and, as of June 2014, there were 635 vessels authorized to operate in the AUCFZ, with more than half of these vessels identified as trawlers (CTMFM 2015). Additionally, of the 635 vessels, around 20 percent identified as coastal vessels, suggesting that fishing pressure and associated fishery-related mortality will continue to be a threat to all life stages of the species into the foreseeable future.
In Uruguay, spiny angel sharks are captured by industrial trawling fleets in coastal and offshore waters (Vögler
In southern Brazil, spiny angel sharks have been heavily fished by industrial trawlers and gillnet fleets for the past few decades (Haimovici 1998; Vögler
However, spiny angel sharks are not only at risk of fishing mortality from the industrial trawl fleets operating on the Plataforma Sul, but also from the commercial oceanic gillnet fisheries which began expanding in the 1990s. As the trawl fleets saw catches start to decline, due to the overexploitation of the marine resources, many trawlers began converting their boats to gillnet vessels in the early 1990s. These vessels would fish at depths of up to 300 m, with the oceanic bottom gillnet fishermen specifically targeting sharks and, based on CPUE data, potentially
Likely contributing to the decreases in CPUE seen in both the industrial trawl and gillnet fleets is the fact that the majority of landings from these fisheries consist of juvenile angel sharks which, after spending their first year in depths <20 m, migrate out over the continental shelf (see
Despite the decreases observed in spiny angel shark abundance on the Plataforma Sul, fishing effort remains high. Additionally, all life stages of spiny angel sharks are susceptible to the industrial shelf fisheries as the fleets operate year round covering the entire depth distribution of the species. In fact, in 2002, it was estimated that the fishing effort of the industrial trawl fleet from Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina (the two largest fishing fleets operating on the Plataforma Sul) trawled around 141,000 km
Furthermore, as previously discussed in the other species assessments, these fleets operate at high efforts on the Plataforma Sul and especially within important coastal nursery and inner shelf habitats for the species. Although landings of the species are currently prohibited, the fleets' extensive operations will continue to contribute to the fishing mortality of all life stages of
These industrial trawl and gillnet fleets currently participate in nationally important fisheries and, as such, the threat they pose to
In the AUCFZ, the area comprising around one quarter of the species' range, and where survey data suggest the species is likely at highest concentration (Jaureguizar
In Uruguay, regulations that likely contribute to decreasing the fishery-related mortality of the species include a summer trawling ban in 25 m to 50 m depths between La Paloma and Chuy and specific fishery area closures in the spring, summer, and autumn on the Uruguayan continental shelf, designated to protect juvenile hake (
The spiny angel shark is also listed as a species of high priority in Uruguay's FAO NPOA-sharks (Domingo
In Brazil, the spiny angel shark is listed on Annex 1 of Brazil's endangered species list and classified as critically endangered (Directive N° 445). As described in previous species accounts, an Annex 1 listing prohibits the catch of the species except for scientific purposes, which requires a special license from IBAMA. There is also a prohibition of trawl fishing within three nautical miles from the coast of southern Brazil, although the enforcement of this prohibition has been noted as difficult (Chiaramonte and Vooren 2007). In addition, the species is still susceptible to being caught as bycatch in the legally permitted coastal gillnet fisheries and offshore trawl and gillnet fisheries and vulnerable to the associated bycatch mortality (Lessa and Vooren 2007). The spiny angelshark is also listed as one of the 12 species of concern under Brazil's FAO NPOA-sharks and would benefit from the proposed fishing closures and other
The best available information provides multiple lines of evidence indicating that the
Spiny angel sharks are likely the most abundant angel shark species from southern Brazil to Argentina; however, current quantitative estimates of abundance of the species throughout its range are unavailable. In Argentina, the abundance of spiny angel sharks in the San Matías Gulf (which comprises around 9.6 percent of the species' range) was estimated to be 192.53 t in 1993. In 2003, the estimated biomass of spiny angel sharks for all of coastal Argentina was 23,600 t. No other population estimates have been calculated for the species. Additionally, between 1981 and 2004, catch rates and density estimates for areas off the Argentine continental shelf have been variable; however, fishing fleets reported declines of up to 58 percent in CPUE between 1992 and 1998.
In Brazil, quantitative information, in the form of CPUE and landings data for the fishing fleets operating on the Plataforma Sul, is available for all angel shark species, of which
Based on the commercial fishery information, it is likely that spiny angel sharks have experienced varying levels of population decline throughout its range. In the northern half of the species' range (off Brazil), the best available information indicates the species has undergone rather substantial population declines, with evidence of negative population growth rates that led to significant decreases in the overall abundance of the species to the point where catch rates and observations of spiny angel sharks are extremely low. Off Uruguay and Argentina, where reported biomass estimates suggest the species was and is likely still most concentrated, the higher abundance levels may explain why the magnitude of population decline is estimated to be smaller in this portion of the species' range. Therefore, while the species may not be of such low abundance such that it is currently at risk of extinction, given the high exploitation of the species throughout its range and subsequent population decline in the northern half, coupled with the species' low productivity, abundance levels will likely continue to decline through the foreseeable future to the point where it may be a significant contributing factor to the species' overall extinction risk.
There is minimal information on the growth rate and productivity of the species. Based on the estimated von Bertalanffy growth parameters, the spiny angel shark exhibits rather fast growth rates for a shark species (with a growth coefficient (
The spiny angel shark has a widespread range in the southwest Atlantic but is thought to be comprised of smaller, more localized populations (Chiaramonte and Vooren 2007); however, information to support this is currently unavailable. Information on the connectivity among
A recent genetic analysis using maternally-inherited mitochondrial DNA markers from spiny angel sharks in and around the Rio de la Plata Estuary (approximately mid point of the species' range) found no evidence of population genetic structuring (Garcia
The primary threat to
In Argentina, although the species is not directly targeted, they are caught incidentally in multispecies artisanal shark fisheries and are considered a valuable bycatch species (Chiaramonte 1998; Bornatowski
In Uruguay, spiny angel sharks are both targeted and caught as bycatch by industrial trawling fleets in coastal and offshore waters (Vögler
In Brazil, spiny angel sharks have been heavily exploited by industrial trawlers and gillnet fleets since the 1980s (Haimovici 1998; Vögler
There is significant uncertainty regarding the current abundance of the species throughout its entire range. While the Brazilian populations have experienced substantial declines and remain at risk from overutilization by fisheries, the same cannot be concluded with certainty for the populations farther south in the species' range. Based on the available data, the populations off Uruguay and Argentina have likely experienced moderate declines, with recent landings and vessel data potentially indicating a decreasing trend in abundance and stable or increasing trend in fishing effort. The significant demographic risks to the species (
With the exception of the recommendations within the FAO NPOA-sharks discussed above, we were unable to find any other information on protective efforts for the conservation of spiny angel sharks in Argentina, Uruguay, or Brazil that would potentially alter the extinction risk for the species. We seek additional information on other conservation efforts in our public comment process (see below).
Based on the best available scientific and commercial information as presented in the status review report and this finding, we find that the spiny angel shark is not presently in danger of extinction throughout its range but likely to become so in the foreseeable future. We assessed the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors and conclude that the species faces ongoing threats from overutilization and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms throughout its range. Due to the species' relatively fast growth rate (for elasmobranchs) and high biomass in the southern portion of its range, the species has not yet declined to abundance levels that would likely trigger the onset of depensatory processes. However, the species' demographic risks (including very low fecundity, low genetic diversity, and connectivity) coupled with the significant reduction in the population from the northern portion of its range, greatly increases the species' vulnerability to extinction from environmental variation or anthropogenic perturbations. Furthermore, given the evidence of decreasing landings despite stable (or even increasing) fishing effort, we find that the level of exploitation in the area where spiny angel sharks are currently most concentrated is likely contributing to unsustainable fishing mortality rates. We therefore conclude that the species is on a trajectory indicating that it will more likely than not be at risk of extinction in the foreseeable future. We also found no evidence of protective efforts for the conservation of spiny angel sharks that would reduce the level of extinction risk faced by the species. We therefore propose to list the spiny angel shark as a threatened species.
In addition to the spiny angel shark, the Argentine angel shark was petitioned for listing under the ESA. The Argentine angel shark occurs in the Southwest Atlantic and can be distinguished from its sympatric species by its coloration, dental formula, neurocranial features, dorsal surface denticle pattern, and pectoral fin shape. Unlike
While there is some conflicting information regarding the range of Argentine angel shark, it is clear that they have a restricted range in the Southwest Atlantic, and are present in southern Brazil (from Rio de Janeiro southward), Uruguay, and at least the northern part of Argentina (
Like the spiny angel shark, the Argentine angel shark is thought to be a sit-and-wait predator, lying motionless on the bottom until prey passes closely overhead. The prey is then grasped by an upward bite (Vooren and da Silva 1991). There is limited information regarding the Argentine angel shark diet. In a study that analyzed stomach contents of 53 individuals, results showed that fish made up 68.33 percent of the diet, and crustaceans and molluscs made up 15 percent and 1.6 percent of the diet, respectively (Cousseau 1973). The rest of the diet contained unidentifiable remains. The most common fish species was
Little is known about the growth and reproduction of the Argentine angel shark. Their maximum total length is estimated at 138 cm with a size at sexual maturity of 120 cm TL; however, age at first maturity and size at birth are unknown (Vooren and da Silva 1991; Vooren and Klippel 2005a). Gravid females and neonates are rarely found, so little is known about the reproductive characteristics of the species. Gestation is lecithotrophic (developing embryos depend on yolk for nutrition) (Vooren 1997) and litter size ranges from 7-11 pups (most commonly 9 or 10 pups) (Vooren and Klippel 2005a). Like
Studies examining the genetics of the species or information on its population structure could not be found.
Information regarding natural mortality rates or the intrinsic rate of
As previously described, there is conflicting information regarding the range of the Argentine angel shark, and the species' distribution is poorly defined. While there are no specific population abundance estimates for Argentine angel sharks, they are considered to be the least common species of angel shark found in the southwestern Atlantic, particularly in Argentina (Vooren and Klippel 2005a). According to one paper, Argentine angel sharks occur in highest densities (from 1 to 11.4 t/nm
In Brazil, Argentine angel sharks of all life stages are most abundant between Rio Grande and Chuí in Rio Grande do Sul, with no evidence of abundant populations outside of this area (Vooren and Klippel 2005a; Vooren and Chiaramonte 2006). Specifically, the outer shelf and upper slope of the southern Brazilian continental shelf, south of latitude 32 °S., are important habitat areas for
We reviewed the best available information regarding historical, current, and potential threats to the Argentine angel shark species. We find that the main threat to this species is overutilization for commercial purposes. We consider the severity of this threat to be exacerbated by the species' natural biological vulnerability to overexploitation, which has led to significant declines in abundance of the species. We find current regulatory measures inadequate to protect the species from further overutilization. Hence, we identify these factors as additional threats contributing to the species' risk of extinction. We summarize information regarding these threats and their interactions below according to the factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. Available information does not indicate that habitat destruction or modification, disease, predation or other natural or manmade factors are operative threats on these species; therefore, we do not discuss these factors further in this finding. See Casselbury and Carlson (2015f) for discussion of these ESA section 4(a)(1) threat categories.
The primary threat to
As discussed in the spiny angel shark assessment, angel sharks, in general, have been historically caught in the multispecies artisanal shark fisheries and considered valuable bycatch species in Argentina (see spiny angel shark:
In Uruguay, Argentine angel sharks are targeted in the Atlantic gillnet fishery and bottom trawl fisheries. They are also caught as bycatch in bottom longline, estuarine gillnet, and bottom trawl fisheries (Domingo
In Brazil, Argentine angel sharks are most abundant between Rio Grande and Chuí in Rio Grande do Sul, off southern Brazil (Vooren and Klippel 2005a; Vooren and Chiaramonte 2006); however, they are the least captured
As catch rates of shelf resources decreased, and international markets for traditionally discarded or poorly known species expanded, deep-water demersal fishing operations off southern Brazil (from 20° S.-34° S.) increased in the early 1990s (Valentini
As the regional Brazilian fleets gradually occupied slope grounds in the 1990s, they were joined by foreign fleets chartered by national companies as part of a deep-water fishing development program promoted by Brazilian authorities (Perez
In 2003, the fishery regime changed, as the foreign chartered vessels abandoned Brazilian waters as a result of conflicts with national trawlers (Perez
Argentine angel sharks are still likely susceptible to fishing pressure in the monkfish fishery, as the fishery is still operational today. Recent landings of monkfish for years 2009, 2010, and 2011 were 2,744 mt, 2,592 mt and 2,616 mt, respectively (IBAMA 2011). While this is a large reduction from peak landings in 2001 of 7,094 mt, Argentine angel sharks of all life stages are likely still bycaught by this fishery, which may limit the species from recovering from its initial 80 percent population decline, especially considering the species' low productivity. In addition, the Argentine angel shark likely has high discard mortality rates based on rates estimated for similar angel shark species (see spiny angel shark—Threats Assessment). Given general similarities between the Argentine angel shark and other
Thus, while the bottom gillnet fishery specifically targeting monkfish has been restricted in terms of overall effort, with only the national trawl fleet continuing to operate on the upper slope (Perez
In Argentina, catches of angel sharks are regulated through annual catch limits and fisheries closures. Since 2013,
In Uruguay, the Argentine angel shark is listed as a species of high priority in the country's FAO NPOA-sharks (Domingo
Like the spiny angel shark, and other species described previously in this proposed rule, the Argentine angel shark was listed as “critically endangered” under Annex I of Brazil's endangered species list in 2004. As described in previous species assessments, an Annex 1 listing prohibits the catch of the species except for scientific purposes, which requires a special license from IBAMA. There is also a prohibition of trawl fishing within three nautical miles from the coast of southern Brazil, although enforcement of this prohibition has been noted as difficult (Chiaramonte and Vooren 2007), and moreover, the ban only covers depths of <10 m, which does little to provide any protection to the Argentine angel shark given its principal depth distribution of 120-320 m. As described in previous species assessments, Brazil has a FAO NPOA-sharks; however, the Argentine angel shark is not considered one of the 12 species of concern.
Finally, there are some regulatory mechanisms in place for the monkfish fishery in Brazil, which operates in the primary habitat of the Argentine angel shark and has been a significant source of bycatch-related mortality for the species. In mid-2002, government regulations were implemented to prohibit foreign gillnetters from operating south of 21°S (to the southern extent of Brazil's EEZ), which roughly encompasses the entirety of the Argentine angel shark's Brazilian range. This regulation effectively terminated foreign chartered gillnet operations off Brazil and left a national fleet of 5 licensed units to continue the fishery (Perez
Overall, regulatory mechanisms for the monkfish fishery, particularly the ban of chartered foreign gillnets from 21° S. to the southern extent of Brazil's EEZ, which were responsible for catching a total of 157,656 monkfish (compared to a total of only 16,697 monkfish landed by all gears of the national fleet) from 2000-2007, and recent catch limits of 1,500 tons for the gillnet fishery, have likely reduced the level of fishing pressure and subsequent mortality of Argentine angel sharks. However, the fact that enforcement of management rules for the monkfish fishery has been poor, with no evident signs of recovery for this overexploited resource (Perez
Estimates of population abundance specifically for Argentine angel shark (
There is limited information regarding the growth and reproduction of the Argentine angel shark, and information on natural mortality rates or the potential intrinsic rate of population increase for the species is unavailable. The species has an estimated maximum total length of 138 cm with a size at sexual maturity of 120 cm TL, which means the species must grow to approximately 87 percent of its maximum size before reaching sexual maturity. Gravid females and neonates are rarely found, so little is known about the gestation and birth of this species; however, litter sizes range from 7-11 pups (with 9-10 pups being common) and their reproductive cycle is reportedly at least biennial (Vooren and Chiaramonte 2006). These reproductive characteristics suggest the species has relatively low productivity, similar to other elasmobranch species, which has likely hindered its ability to quickly rebound from threats that decrease its abundance (such as overutilization) and renders the species more vulnerable to extinction. In addition, similar to its congener
The Argentine angel shark has a very restricted range, from Santa Catarina, Brazil to northern Argentina (
The loss of diversity can increase a species' extinction risk through decreasing a species' capability of responding to episodic or changing environmental conditions. This can occur through a significant change or loss of variation in life history characteristics (such as reproductive fitness and fecundity), morphology, behavior, or other genetic characteristics. Although it is unknown if
The primary threat to
Historically, angel sharks, including
Off southern Brazil, angel sharks have been and continue to be heavily exploited by the trawl and gillnet fisheries (see the
Overall, it is likely that
Although there is significant uncertainty regarding the current abundance of the species, it appears that the Argentine angel shark is relatively rare outside of southern Brazil, where small, isolated populations have experienced substantial declines and remain at risk from overutilization by fisheries targeting deep-water monkfish. Best available information indicates the species has experienced at least an 80 percent reduction of its critically important southern Brazil population as a result of intense year-round fishing pressure, and will continue to decline without adequate protection from overutilization. Given the species' restricted range and present rarity throughout the range, combined with its limited movement and dispersal between populations and low reproductive output,
Aside from the management goals outlined in the previously described FAO NPOA-sharks in Uruguay, we could not find any additional information regarding protective efforts for the Argentine angel shark.
Based on the best available scientific and commercial information as presented in the status review report and this finding, we find that the Argentine angel shark is presently at risk of extinction throughout all of its range. We assessed the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors and conclude that the species faces ongoing threats from overutilization and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms throughout its range. The species' present rarity and restricted range, combined with the its natural biological vulnerability to overexploitation and demographic risks (
The graytail skate,
The graytail skate occurs in Southwest Atlantic waters off the coasts of Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, and the Falkland Islands, and in the Southeast Pacific off of Chile (Sáez and Lamilla 2004). They have been caught at latitudes as far north as 39° S. in the Pacific Ocean and 34° S. in the Atlantic Ocean, and as far south as 60° S. in the Southern Ocean on the Antarctic shelf (Bigelow and Schroeder 1965; Figueroa
Various studies on graytail skate diet indicate they are opportunistic predators that consume a variety of prey items, but primarily favor fish. The most extensive study of the diet and feeding
Graytail skates have a lifespan of approximately 28 years, with a maximum observed disc width of 130 cm and a maximum weight of 30.4 kg (Arkhipkin
Little is known about the reproduction of the graytail skate (Sánchez and Mabragaña 2002) and available age and growth studies from the same region provide conflicting estimates for length and age at maturity. For example, in the Falkland Islands, Gallagher (2000) estimated a total length at 50 percent maturity of 120.7 cm for both sexes, with males and females maturing after 17.6 and 24.8 years respectively. Arkhipkin
Studies examining the genetics of the species or information on its population structure could not be found.
Little is known about the population growth and natural mortality of the graytail skate. However, based on the life history parameters described previously, like other elasmobranchs, the graytail skate is a
Graytail skate occur on the continental shelf and slope in the southwestern Atlantic Ocean, south of 34° S. and in the southeastern Pacific Ocean, south of 39° S. (Figueroa
Throughout their range, graytail skates are found at depths between 106 m and 1,010 m, but have been caught as shallow as 77 m in Argentine waters (Bücker 2006). Graytail skate are typically most common at depths below 300 m (Bigelow and Schroeder 1965; Menni and Lopez 1984; Brickle
Range-wide abundance estimates for graytail skate are not available; however, biomass estimates exist for the populations off the Falkland Islands and Argentina. In the Falkland Islands, graytail skate were part of the fish assemblage of both the southern and northern skate and ray stocks. They were particularly abundant south of the islands, making them dominant in catches of the southern skate and ray assemblage. However, due to declining CPUEs of the southern stock, especially for graytail skate, the southern rajid fishery was closed in 1996 (Agnew
In 2002, Sánchez and Mabragaña (2002) estimated the population abundance of the graytail skate on the continental Argentine shelf between 48° S. and 55° S. to be 259,210 individuals, or 2,431.98 t. This estimate was calculated prior to the apparent recovery of the graytail skate in the Falkland Islands and also corresponds to when CPUE of the graytail skate was at its minimum in the Falkland Islands (Wakeford
Farther north on the Argentine shelf, between 45° S. and 41° S., the biomass of graytail skate was estimated to be 503 t in 2004, but had a large confidence interval (
There is very little information pertaining to the presence of graytail skate in Uruguayan and Chilean waters. No information on commercial, recreational, or research catches of graytail skate is available from Uruguay. Likewise, there is no estimate of abundance from this area. In Chile, graytail skate are found south of 41° S. and at depths of 137 m to 595 m (McCormack
We reviewed the best available information regarding historical, current, and potential threats to the graytail skate species. We find that the main threat to this species is overutilization for commercial purposes; however, we consider the severity of this threat to be greatly reduced by the regulatory mechanisms in place in the Falkland Islands, where the species was historically most heavily exploited. Thus, we find that historical and present levels of utilization are not exceeding the species' biological capacity to sustain current levels of exploitation. We also find that current regulatory measures are adequate to protect the species from further overutilization. Additionally, available information does not indicate that habitat destruction or modification, disease, predation or other natural or manmade factors are operative threats on these species. We summarize information regarding these factors and their interactions below according to section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. See Casselbury and Carlson (2015g) for a more detailed discussion of these factors.
Trawl fisheries occur throughout the graytail skate's range. Studies show that the interaction of bottom trawling gears with bottom substrate can have negative effects on benthic fish habitat (Valdemarsen
Information available on the harvest of the graytail skate indicates that they are most heavily exploited in the Falkland Islands multispecies skate and ray fishery by foreign fleets (Agnew
As a result of the marked declines in CPUE, particularly for the entire southern batoid aggregation, which was presumed to be driven by declines in graytail skate (Agnew
In terms of the graytail skate, despite the reported historical reductions in CPUE,
Given the evidence of increasing CPUE and biomass of the northern skate assemblage, skate catch estimates that are below MSY, stable biomass estimates of graytail skate, and increasing abundance and sizes of graytail skates in catches, the current fishing effort and level of exploitation of skates in general, and graytail skate in particular, in the Falkland Islands appears to be sustainable (Falkland Islands Government 2014). In other words, overutilization of the species in this portion of its range is not a threat that is contributing significantly to its risk of extinction.
In Argentina, an active commercial elasmobranch fishery, which exploits sharks, skates, and rays, has shown an increasing trend in both catches and number of vessels reporting skate and ray landings since the early 1990s. Historically, skates and rays were mainly discarded as fisheries bycatch, but are now landed as both target and non-target catch (Chiaramonte 1998; Massa and Hozbor 2003). Specifically, catches have increased from 183 t in 1991 to 13,265 t in 2000, and vessels reporting landings have increased from 69 in 1992 to 377 in 1998 (Sánchez and Mabragaña 2002; Massa and Hozbor 2003). From 1994-1998, Massa and Hozbor (2003) estimated a decline of around 36 percent in the CPUE of large fishing vessels (>28 m in length) for all skates and rays on the Argentine shelf between 34 and 48° S.; however, the data are not species-specific and deep-water skates, like the graytail skate, are generally not monitored despite the fact that they are under fishing pressure (Massa
Along the Patagonian shelf, the graytail skate has also been observed as bycatch in the scallop (
Similarly, little information is available on the exploitation of the graytail skate in Chilean waters. There is a directed skate fishery off Chile that primarily targets the yellownose skate (
At this time, there is no available information regarding diseases or predators of the species. As such, there is no evidence to indicate that these factors are a threat to the graytail skate.
In the Falkland Islands, there are numerous management measures in place that provide for the protection of graytail skate from overutilization. The Falkland Islands multispecies fishery, where graytail skate is presumably most heavily exploited, is rigorously managed through fishing effort controls. In order to protect the southern batoid aggregation area that displayed marked declines in CPUE in the early 1990s (Agnew
In Argentina, the graytail skate is covered under the country's FAO NPOA-sharks; however, it is not considered a priority species. Several sources have noted that Argentina does little to actively protect elasmobranchs, particularly skates and rays, in its waters (Massa and Hozbor 2003; Massa
In Uruguay, the graytail skate is considered a species of high priority under Uruguay's FAO NPOA-sharks, which outlines plans to: investigate the species' age, growth, reproduction, diet, distribution, and habitat use in Uruguayan waters; generate a time series for catch and effort of the skate in fisheries; conduct an abundance assessment; establish measures to review current fishing licenses for graytail skate and determine possible modifications to the licenses; and finally, prohibit new fishing permits. However, aside from the species' presence in Uruguayan waters, there is a significant lack of information regarding the status of graytail skate in Uruguay; thus, there is no indication that existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate in controlling threats to the species in this portion of its range, or are contributing significantly to its risk of extinction.
In Chile, there are little to no regulations for the protection of graytail skate; however, the exploitation of the species in Chilean waters is minimal. While there are regulations pertaining to other fisheries in Chilean waters that overlap the graytail skate's range, it is unknown how these regulations affect the status of graytail skate. Based on the available information, there is no indication that existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate in controlling threats to the species in this portion of its range, or are contributing significantly to its risk of extinction.
Besides the information already discussed above in the other factor sections, no additional information was found regarding threats to the species that would fall under this category. As such, there is no evidence to indicate that this factor is a threat to the graytail skate.
Although range-wide abundance estimates for graytail skate are unavailable; biomass estimates and trends exist for the areas where the species was historically and is currently most abundant. In the Falkland Islands, graytail skate represented a dominant part of the southern rajid assemblage in the mid-1990s and comprised around 39 percent of the northern rajid catch. Due to heavy fishing pressure contributing to unsustainable mortality rates, significant declines in the CPUE of the species were observed between 1992 and 2007 indicating a likely reduction in population abundance. However,
Relative growth rates (
Based on trends in commercial fisheries data from the Falkland Islands and Argentina, Wakeford
The loss of diversity can increase a species' extinction risk through decreasing a species' capability of responding to episodic or changing environmental conditions. This can occur through a significant change or loss of variation in life history characteristics (such as reproductive fitness and fecundity), morphology, behavior, or other genetic characteristics. Currently, there is no information regarding the graytail skates' diversity throughout its range, thus we can not conclude whether its present level of diversity is contributing to its extinction risk.
The best available information indicates that graytail skates are most heavily exploited in the Falkland Islands multispecies skate and ray fishery by foreign fleets and likely suffered significant declines in abundance due to overexploitation in the early 1990s. However, since 1996, the area of operation of the Falkland Islands rajid fishery has been significantly restricted (to an area north of the Islands) with imposed catch limits to manage the northern batoid stock assemblage (which includes graytail skates) within this area. As a result of these management measures, there has been a gradual increase in CPUE and biomass of the northern batoid stock assemblage. As for graytail skates specifically, they remain one of the most abundant species caught in the Falkland Islands multispecies skate fishery. Recent data from the Falkland Islands Government shows an increasing trend in the CPUE of the species as well as in the the modal disc width of graytail skate catches, with the latest estimate of 63 cm DW in 2012. While 63 cm is still below the size of sexual maturity (
In Argentina, there is an active commercial elasmobranch fishery, which exploits sharks, skates, and rays, and it has shown an increasing trend in both catches and number of vessels reporting skate and ray landings (Massa and Hozbor 2003). However, based on the lack of species-specific information from the region, it is highly uncertain if present levels of utilization of skates and rays are a threat that is contributing significantly to the extinction risk of the graytail skate.
In Chile, a directed skate fishery that primarily targets
Overall, while the species likely experienced historical declines in abundance during the 1990s due to exploitation by the Falkland Islands multispecies rajid fisheries, the available biomass estimates and trends over the past decade, including gradual increases in the CPUE and biomass of
While the species' demographic characteristics increase its inherent vulnerability to depletion, and likely contributed to past population declines of varying magnitudes, the best available information suggests these risks have decreased due to the adequate control of exploitation of the species. In the Falkland Islands, where the species was most heavily exploited and is likely presently most concentrated, abundance estimates and trends from the 1990s to 2013, and increases in the species' mean disc width, suggest potential stabilization and even recovery of the population. The continued rigorous management and monitoring of the fishery appears adequate in protecting the species from levels of overutilization that would increase its extinction risk. Despite fishing pressure in other parts of the species' range (
Because our range-wide analysis for the species leads us to conclude that the species is not threatened or endangered throughout its range, under the final Significant Portion of Its Range (SPR) policy announced in July 2014, we must go on to consider whether the species may have a higher risk of extinction in a significant portion of its range (79 FR 37577; July 1, 2014).
The final policy explains that it is necessary to fully evaluate a portion for potential listing under the “significant portion of its range” authority only if information indicates that the members of the species in a particular area are likely both to meet the test for biological significance and to be currently endangered or threatened in that area. Making this preliminary determination triggers a need for further review, but does not prejudge whether the portion actually meets these standards such that the species should be listed:
To identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we will determine whether there is substantial information indicating that (1) the portions may be significant and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction in those portions or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. We emphasize that answering these questions in the affirmative is not a determination that the species is endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range—rather, it is a step in determining whether a more detailed analysis of the issue is required (79 FR 37586, July 1, 2014).
Thus, the preliminary determination that a portion may be both significant and endangered or threatened merely requires NMFS to engage in a more detailed analysis to determine whether the standards are actually met (
After a review of the best available information, we identified the Falkland Islands as likely constituting a “significant” portion of the graytail skate range. Under the policy, a portion of a species' range is significant if, without that portion, the species would have an increased vulnerability to threats to the point that the overall species would be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. As mentioned previously, the historical and current fisheries data indicate that graytail skate are likely most concentrated in Falkland waters. Graytail skate have also been identified and caught elsewhere throughout its range, such as north of the Falkland Islands on the Argentinian shelf between 45° S. and 41° S., and on the Pacific coast off Chile (south of 41° S.); however, based on trends in commercial fisheries data from the Falkland Islands and Argentina, Wakeford
Under the policy, if we believe the Falkland Islands population may constitute a “significant” portion of the range, then we must either evaluate the extinction risk of this population first to determine whether it is threatened or endangered in that portion or determine
Based on the best available scientific and commercial information as presented in the status review report and this finding, we find that the graytail skate is not presently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, nor is it likely to become so in the foreseeable future. We summarize the factors supporting this conclusion as follows: (1) Although there is no formal estimate of the current population size and historical declines in biomass have been observed, current biomass estimates from the Falkland Islands, where the species is likely most concentrated, suggest the population is stable and CPUE trends indicate abundance is increasing; (2) a reduction in mean disc width of the Falkland Islands population occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s as a result of intensive fishing pressure; however, recent evidence suggests an increase in modal disc width, which is likely indicative of population recovery; (3) while an identified threat to the species was historical overutilization in the Falkland Islands commercial fisheries, subsequent fishery closures in the southern rajid fishery and catch limits in the northern rajid fishery of the Falkland Islands have contributed to a significant reduction of fishing pressure on the species, leading to increases in the abundance of the population and providing for sustainable fishing of the northern Falkland Islands rajid assemblage; (4) targeting of skates and rays in the Falkland Islands, where the species was most heavily exploited, has been on a decreasing trend since the early 2000s; (5) there is no evidence that destruction of habitat, disease or predation are factors contributing to an increased risk of extinction for the species; and (6) the continual implementation of rigorous monitoring and fishery management measures in the Falkland Islands appears effective in addressing the most important threat to the species (overharvest) now and into the foreseeable future. Based on these findings, we conclude that the graytail skate is not presently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, nor is it likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Accordingly, the graytail skate does not meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species and therefore does not warrant listing as threatened or endangered at this time.
Conservation measures provided for species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA include recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); concurrent designation of critical habitat, if prudent and determinable (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); Federal agency requirements to consult with NMFS under section 7 of the ESA to ensure their actions do not jeopardize the species or result in adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat should it be designated (16 U.S.C. 1536); and prohibitions on taking for endangered species (16 U.S.C. 1538). Recognition of the species' plight through listing promotes conservation actions by Federal and state agencies, foreign entities, private groups, and individuals. The main effects of the proposed endangered listings are prohibitions on take, including export and import.
Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS regulations require Federal agencies to consult with us to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Section 7(a)(4) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(4)) of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS regulations also require Federal agencies to confer with us on actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of species proposed for listing, or that result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat of those species. It is unlikely that the listing of these species under the ESA will increase the number of section 7 consultations, because these species occur outside of the United States and are unlikely to be affected by Federal actions.
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)) as: (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the ESA, on which are found those physical or biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. “Conservation” means the use of all methods and procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing under the ESA is no longer necessary. Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) requires that, to the extent prudent and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the listing of a species. However, critical habitat shall not be designated in foreign countries or other areas outside U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12(h)).
The best available scientific and commercial data as discussed above identify the geographical areas occupied by
We can designate critical habitat in areas in the United States currently unoccupied by the species, if the area(s) are determined by the Secretary to be essential for the conservation of the species. Regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(e) specify that we shall designate as critical habitat areas outside the geographical range presently occupied by the species only when the designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. The best available scientific and commercial information on these species does not indicate that U.S. waters provide any
On July 1, 1994, NMFS and FWS published a policy (59 FR 34272) that requires us to identify, to the maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA.
Because we are proposing to list
(1) Possessing, delivering, transporting, or shipping any individual or part (dead or alive) taken in violation of section 9(a)(1);
(2) Delivering, receiving, carrying, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce any individual or part, in the course of a commercial activity;
(3) Selling or offering for sale in interstate commerce any part, except antique articles at least 100 years old;
(4) Importing or exporting these species or any part of these species.
We emphasize that whether a violation results from a particular activity is entirely dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each incident. Further, an activity not listed may in fact constitute a violation.
We will identify, to the extent known at the time of the final rule, specific activities that will not be considered likely to result in a violation of section 9 of the ESA. Although not binding, we are considering the following actions, depending on the circumstances, as not being prohibited by ESA section 9:
(1) Take authorized by, and carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of, an ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permit issued by NMFS for purposes of scientific research or the enhancement of the propagation or survival of the species;
(2) Continued possession of parts that were in possession at the time of listing. Such parts may be non-commercially exported or imported; however, the importer or exporter must be able to provide evidence to show that the parts meet the criteria of ESA section 9(b)(1) (
We are proposing to list
To ensure that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be as accurate and effective as possible, we are soliciting comments and information from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties on information in the status review and proposed rule. Comments are encouraged on these proposals (See
(1) Information concerning the threats to any of the six species proposed for listing;
(2) Taxonomic information on any of these species;
(3) Biological information (life history, genetics, population connectivity, etc.) on any of these species;
(4) Efforts being made to protect any of these species throughout their current ranges;
(5) Information on the commercial trade of any of these species;
(6) Historical and current distribution and abundance and trends for any of these species;
(7) Current or planned activities within the range of these species and their possible impact on these species; and,
(8) Information relevant to potential ESA section 4(d) protective regulations for any of the proposed threatened species.
We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation, such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents.
In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing a minimum peer review standard. Similarly, a joint NMFS/FWS policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994) requires us to solicit independent expert review from qualified specialists, concurrent with the public comment period. The intent of the peer review policy is to ensure that listings are based on the best scientific and commercial data available. We solicited peer review comments on the species' status review reports (Casselbury and Carlson 2015a-
A complete list of the references used in this proposed rule is available upon request (see
The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the information that may be considered when assessing species for listing. Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the opinion in
As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process. In addition, this proposed rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
In accordance with E.O. 13132, we determined that this proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects and that a Federalism assessment is not required. In keeping with the intent of the Administration and Congress to provide continuing and meaningful dialogue on issues of mutual state and Federal interest, this proposed rule will be given to the relevant governmental agencies in the countries in which the species occurs, and they will be invited to comment. We will confer with the U.S. Department of State to ensure appropriate notice is given to foreign nations within the range of all three species. As the process continues, we intend to continue engaging in informal and formal contacts with the U.S. State Department, giving careful consideration to all written and oral comments received.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Transportation.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Transportation.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 223 and 224 are proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, § 223.201-202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361
(e) * * *
16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C 1361
(h) * * *
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
This final rule will improve the integrity of passenger train exterior side door safety systems and promote passenger train safety overall through new safety standards for the safe operation and use of passenger train exterior side doors. This final rule will limit the number and severity of injuries involving passenger train exterior side doors and enhance the level of safety for passengers and train crewmembers.
This final rule is effective February 5, 2016. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 5, 2016. Petitions for reconsideration must be received on or before February 5, 2016. Comments in response to petitions for reconsideration must be received on or before March 21, 2016.
•
•
•
•
Pete Lapré, Railroad Safety Specialist, Passenger Rail Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Railroad Safety, Mail Stop 25, West Building 3rd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 845-216-5794); or Brian Roberts, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, Mail Stop 10, West Building 3rd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6052).
Having carefully considered the public comments in response to FRA's March 26, 2014, proposed rule on passenger train exterior side door safety,
This final rule is based on recommended language developed by the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee's (RSAC) General Passenger Safety Task Force (Task Force) and includes new requirements for both powered and manual exterior side doors and door safety systems on passenger trains. Operating rules for train crews relating to exterior side doors and their safety systems on passenger trains and new definitions for this part are also included in this final rule. In addition, this final rule incorporates by reference American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Standard PR-M-S-18-10, “Standard for Powered Exterior Side Door System Design for New Passenger Cars” (February 11, 2011), which contains a set of minimum
Other requirements established by this final rule include, but are not limited to: Equipping new passenger cars with powered exterior side doors with an obstruction detection system; connecting new passenger cars (with either manual or powered exterior side doors) to a door summary circuit to prohibit the train from developing tractive power if any of the exterior side doors are open; requiring safety briefings for train crews to identify crewmember responsibilities for the safe operation of exterior side doors; operating passenger trains with their exterior side doors and trap doors closed when in motion between stations, except in limited circumstances or with FRA prior approval; and requiring railroads to develop operating rules on how to safely operate the exterior side doors of a passenger train with incompatible exterior side door safety systems and how to safely override a door summary circuit or a no-motion system, or both, when an exterior side door failure or malfunction occurs.
FRA analyzed the economic impacts of this final rule against a “no action” baseline that reflects what would happen in the absence of this final rule. FRA expects the requirements for the operating rules and adopted APTA standard for new equipment to prevent on average about 19 injuries and 0.20 fatalities per year in the future based on similar incidents in the past. The estimated benefits from these prevented casualties over a 20-year period total $83.9 million undiscounted; these estimated benefits have a present value of $43.3 million calculated using a 7-percent discount rate, and a present value of $61.7 million calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. Given that some procedural and equipment errors may still occur in the future, the analysis assumes a 50-percent effectiveness rate in preventing these types of injuries and fatalities when estimating monetary benefits. In addition, there may be other benefits from the final rule, such as fewer passenger claims for personal property damage, maintaining passenger goodwill and trust, and by lowering future maintenance costs (by encouraging the replacement of older equipment with new passenger cars equipped with more reliable door safety systems).
FRA also quantified the incremental burden of the final rule upon commuter and intercity passenger railroads. The primary contributor to the estimated costs is the train crew's task of verifying that the door by-pass devices on the train are sealed in the normal non-by-pass mode, an operating rule requirement. The door by-pass devices are used to override door safety systems in certain circumstances, for example, allowing a train to develop tractive power and complete its route. The second greatest cost factor is the estimated cost to implement some of the door safety features on new passenger cars with either powered or manual doors and locomotives used in passenger service. The estimated costs over the 20-year period of analysis total $15.2 million undiscounted, with a present value of about $8.3 million calculated using a 7-percent discount rate, and a present value of about $11.5 million calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. The rule incurs relatively small costs because most of the initial burdens are expected from changes to railroad operating rules. The design standards for door safety systems apply to new passenger cars and locomotives used in passenger service where they can be installed cost-effectively.
These costs and benefits result in net positive benefits over 20 years of about $68.7 million undiscounted, with a present value of $35.0 million calculated using a 7-percent discount rate, and present value of $50.2 million calculated using a 3-percent discount rate.
In September 1994, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) convened a meeting of representatives from all sectors of the rail industry with the goal of enhancing rail safety. As one of the initiatives arising from this Rail Safety Summit, the Secretary announced that DOT would begin developing safety standards for rail passenger equipment over a five-year period. In November 1994, Congress adopted the Secretary's schedule for implementing rail passenger equipment safety regulations and included it in the Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994 (Act), Public Law 103-440, 108 Stat. 4619, 4623-4624 (November 2, 1994). Congress also authorized the Secretary to consult with various organizations involved in passenger train operations for purposes of prescribing and amending these regulations and issuing orders under them. Section 215 of the Act (codified at 49 U.S.C. 20133). The Secretary has delegated such responsibilities to the Administrator of FRA.
FRA formed the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards Working Group to provide FRA with advice in developing the regulations Congress mandated, and on May 12, 1999, published a final rule containing a set of comprehensive safety standards for railroad passenger equipment.
One of the purposes of the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards is protecting the safety of passenger train occupants in an emergency, including providing for emergency egress and rescue access through exterior side doors.
FRA's principal reason for issuing this final rule is to reduce the number and severity of injuries caused by exterior side doors striking or trapping passengers as they board or alight from passenger trains in non-emergency situations. FRA has observed that incidents involving exterior side doors in routine use on passenger trains have previously resulted in casualties and serious injuries.
For example, on November 21, 2006, a New Jersey Transit Rail Operations (NJT) train was departing a station in Bradley Beach, New Jersey, when the closing exterior side doors of the train caught and held a passenger attempting to exit the train. The passenger was then dragged by the train along the station
Through its investigation of the incident, FRA found that the train's assistant conductor was not in the proper position to monitor all the train's exterior side doors as they were closing. Specifically, the assistant conductor could not see the passenger exit through a door behind where the assistant conductor was located. The assistant conductor also did not observe the door-indicator lights on the door control panel which indicated that the exterior side doors on the passenger car were not all closed as intended. In addition, FRA learned the train was being operated with its door by-pass switch activated, negating the passenger car's door safety system, which was designed to reopen the exterior side doors after detecting an obstruction.
As a result of this incident, NJT reviewed its operating rules and limited the use of the door by-pass feature in its passenger train operations. Contemporaneously, FRA issued Safety Advisory 2006-05, “Notice of Safety Advisory: Passenger Train Safety—Passenger Boarding or Alighting from Trains” (71 FR 69606, Dec. 1, 2006). The safety advisory recommended that passenger railroads reassess their rules and procedures to make certain that trains do not depart a station until all passengers have successfully boarded or alighted from the train. The safety advisory also noted the important role of passenger train crews in the safe operation of a train after a door by-pass switch has been activated. FRA encouraged passenger railroads to voluntarily implement the recommendations of the safety advisory.
Subsequently, there have been other instances where passengers have become trapped in the exterior side doors of trains. In one instance, on February 2, 2007, a local police officer witnessed a passenger stuck between the exterior side doors of a moving Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) train at a station in New York City, New York. As a result, the passenger's right leg was dragged on the tactile strip of the station platform, causing abrasions to the passenger's leg. The police officer stopped the train and pulled the passenger free from the exterior side doors.
Other instances were “close calls” in which passengers narrowly avoided injury. On March 4, 2011, in La Grange, Illinois, a passenger's arm and cane got caught in the closing exterior side doors of a Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra) train while attempting to board the train. A fellow passenger inside the train was able to flip the door's emergency switch just as the train began to move. As a result, the trapped passenger was released and avoided being dragged down the station platform. A similar incident occurred on a Metra train on December 19, 2009, when a four-year-old boy's boot became caught in the exterior side doors when alighting from the train. The child's mother had to pull the child's leg free from the train doors as the train was leaving the station.
As a result of these types of incidents, Metra changed its operating rules to require a “second look” up and down each train before departing a station. This operating rule requires the conductor to close all exterior side doors on the train, except the door in which he or she is standing, to take a second look up and down the station platform to make sure all the train's exterior side doors are closed and clear of passengers. After the second look, the conductor may then close his or her open door and signal to the train's engineer to depart the station.
Since the issuance of the NPRM for this rulemaking in March 2014, there have been other injuries involving passengers and exterior side doors. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) reported to FRA that in June 2014 an MBTA passenger got his luggage stuck in the closing exterior side doors of the train and was subsequently injured when the train started to move. When the train started to leave the station platform, the passenger sustained injuries after he was dragged by the train a total of 30 to 40 feet before falling.
In addition, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) reported to FRA an incident that occurred in October 2014 where a passenger was injured after she put her hand in the closing exterior side door of a passenger train at the Burlingame Station in San Mateo, California. The train's passenger door safety system did not work as intended and the passenger got her hand caught in the closing door and it did not re-open. As a result, the passenger was dragged by the train approximately 10 feet.
Based on these types of incidents, and other findings and concerns, including initial findings from assessing the safety of exterior side door systems on passenger railroads in the northeast region of the United States, FRA tasked RSAC to review Safety Advisory 2006-5 and develop recommendations for new safety standards to improve passenger and crewmember safety for the operation and use of exterior side doors. The Task Force, a subgroup of the RSAC Passenger Safety Working Group (Working Group), was assigned to develop these recommendations.
The Task Force was already reviewing passenger station gap issues in April 2007 when it was assigned this task. The Task Force then assembled the Passenger Door Safety Subgroup (Door Safety Subgroup) to develop recommended regulatory language to improve the safety of exterior side door systems on passenger trains. FRA shared with RSAC its initial findings that many passenger railroads in the Northeast were not operated with fully-functional passenger train exterior side door safety systems, and FRA then conducted in-person assessments of the exterior side door safety systems on a total of 24 passenger railroads throughout the Nation. During those assessments, FRA reviewed many different models of passenger equipment and gained important information about the risks to passengers and train crews associated with the operation and use of passenger train exterior side doors. FRA shared this information with the Door Safety Subgroup, which met a total of nine times from 2008 to 2011.
Through its meetings, the Door Safety Subgroup developed proposed regulatory language to improve the safe use and operation of exterior side doors on passenger trains. The Task Force approved the consensus language on February 25, 2011, which was then adopted by the Working Group and full Committee on March 31, 2011, and May 20, 2011, respectively.
While the Door Safety Subgroup was developing proposed regulatory language, APTA developed and approved Standard SS-M-18-10, “Standard for Powered Exterior Side Door System Design for New Passenger Cars.” Subsequent to RSAC's approval of the consensus recommendations that form the basis of this final rule, APTA changed its numbering nomenclature for its safety standards, which resulted in the numbering of this standard changing from SS-M-18-10 to PR-M-S-18-10 without changing the substantive content of the standard. Thus, this standard is identified as PR-M-S-18-10 in this final rule. This APTA standard contains minimum standards for powered exterior side door systems and door system function on new rail passenger cars because APTA designed it to be used in specifications for the procurement of new passenger cars. The standard addresses door system design requirements at the door level, car level, and train level. Non-powered doors and other types of doors on passenger cars that are not exterior side doors are not
In March 1996, FRA established RSAC as a forum for collaborative rulemaking and program development. RSAC includes representatives from all of the agency's major stakeholder groups, including railroads, labor organizations, suppliers and manufacturers, and other interested parties.
* Indicates associate, non-voting membership.
In May 2003, RSAC established the Working Group to handle the task of reviewing passenger equipment safety needs and programs as well as developing recommendations for specific actions to advance the safety of rail passenger service.
In September 2006, the Working Group established the Task Force principally to examine the following issues: (1) Exterior side door securement; (2) passenger safety in train stations; and (3) system safety plans.
To aid the Task Force with its delegated task, FRA's Office of Chief Counsel, in conjunction with FRA's Office of Railroad Safety, typically drafted proposed regulatory text for discussion purposes at Door Safety Subgroup meetings. Door Safety Subgroup members would then offer suggested changes to this proposed draft text. Staff from DOT's John A. Volpe National Transportation System Center also attended these meetings and contributed to the discussions. Minutes of each meeting are part of the docket in this proceeding and are available for public inspection.
Through these various discussions, the Door Safety Subgroup developed proposed regulatory language which the Task Force accepted as a recommendation to the Working Group on February 25, 2011. The Task Force's consensus language was then subsequently approved by the Working Group on March 31, 2011. The consensus language was then presented before the full Committee on May 20, 2011, where it was approved by unanimous vote. Thus, the Working Group's recommendation was adopted by the full Committee as the recommendation to FRA.
In the March 26, 2014 NPRM, FRA proposed adding some regulatory text that was not expressly part of the RSAC's consensus recommendation. For instance, for the benefit of the regulated community, in proposed § 238.131(c), FRA identified other sections in part
In addition, FRA made changes to the RSAC recommended language to clarify the proposed requirements in the NPRM. For example, FRA clarified that the provisions of the NPRM applied to full-sized exterior side doors besides those used for the boarding and alighting of passengers at train stations, such as baggage doors, but did not apply to small hatches of compartment-sized doors and the exterior side doors on private cars. FRA also decided not to include in the NPRM an RSAC recommendation that powered, exterior side passenger doors be connected to a manual override device capable of opening the exterior side doors when the doors are locked out, because this design requirement was already covered under existing regulations at § 238.112(a) and (b). FRA also moved an RSAC consensus item proposed under existing § 238.305 (“Interior calendar day mechanical inspection of passenger cars”) to new proposed § 238.133(g)(2) in the NPRM, so the requirement would apply to all tiers of passenger cars, including conventional locomotives used in passenger service.
FRA specifically asked for comment on these areas of the proposal. However, FRA did not receive any comments on these or other areas of the NPRM where FRA specifically invited comment.
Overall, FRA received four comments in response to the NPRM from the following parties: Sensotech Inc. (Sensotech), the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), Veolia Transportation (Veolia), and an anonymous commenter. The comment from Veolia was initially received as an email to an FRA staff director asking whether one of Veolia's procedures conflicted with a proposal in the NPRM. FRA has included the email and an attachment received by the staff director in the public docket for this rulemaking and is treating the email and its attachment as a comment on this rulemaking.
FRA appreciates and carefully considered all comments it received regarding this rulemaking. The comments raised issues on what type of technology FRA considered when developing this rulemaking, whether FRA would modify its proposal in § 238.135(b) that exterior side doors and trap doors must be closed between stations, and whether a specific safety procedure would be an allowable exception to the proposed requirement to keep the doors closed. FRA also received one comment that was not germane and outside the scope of this rulemaking. FRA did not change any of the regulatory text in this final rule based on the comments it received but addresses each comment below. The full text of every comment FRA received on the NPRM is in the public docket for this rulemaking at
Sensotech submitted a comment commending FRA for its efforts to improve passenger safety and comfort. However, Sensotech stated it did not see in the NPRM any information about the use of acoustic technology to support passenger door safety. According to Sensotech, “[a]coustic technology is the most suitable technology for remote sensing for rail doors” because it is not sensitive to metallic carbon dust created by moving trains and brake pads, and the technology is programmed to distinguish between outdoor elements (like hail, snow, and rain) versus a person or other hard objects. As a result, according to Sensotech, acoustic technology is more reliable in supporting passenger door safety than other technologies. Sensotech described an acoustic technology door sensor system it developed for transit bus doors implemented in buses. In addition, Sensotech described an application it developed specifically for passenger rail door application, stating that it has been installed more recently on a commuter rail system.
FRA thanks Sensotech for providing information about the use of acoustic technology to promote door safety. However, FRA did not specify in the NPRM, and declines to specify in this final rule, what specific type of technology railroads must use to comply with the requirements of this final rule. FRA sought to develop requirements that are performance-based. FRA believes that allowing railroads the freedom to decide how best to comply with the requirements in this final rule allows railroads to make the most efficient decisions to meet FRA's safety requirements and minimize the costs of the rule.
SEPTA submitted a comment expressing concern regarding the proposed requirement that all exterior side doors and trap doors be closed when a train is in motion between stations. (
However, since sending this letter to FRA in 2010, SEPTA replaced its Silverliner II and Silverliner III cars with manual doors and trap doors with new Silverliner V cars. According to SEPTA, these Silverliner V cars have power-operated doors with manual trap doors located inside the cars. SEPTA specifically raised concern about the requirement proposed in § 238.135(b) that trap doors must be closed between stations. SEPTA stated that when the trap doors are open and the side doors are closed, a passenger could not fall out of the car from the passenger compartment. Therefore, according to SEPTA, the cars can move safely between stations with the cars' side doors closed and its trap doors open. However, SEPTA noted that the proposed language in § 238.135(b) does not make an allowance for this car design. SEPTA also stated that as part of its capital program it estimates that in 2020 it will begin to replace its current Silverliner IV fleet with new Silverliner VI cars, which it anticipates will be fully compliant with the requirements of 49 CFR 238.135. In the meantime, SEPTA suggested FRA allow an exception “[w]hen the open trap [door] is located within the car allowing the side door to completely close over the opening preventing any access to the outside of the car from the passenger compartment.”
In its comment to FRA, Veolia also expressed concern about the requirement that exterior side doors and trap doors be closed when a train is in motion between stations in proposed § 238.135(b). Veolia described a “redundant safety procedure” at a particular interlocking where it requires conductors to verify the signal indication. Veolia believed this procedure may necessitate opening a door while the train is moving and sought to continue this practice. In addition, Veolia noted that some conductors open their workstation door as their train approaches the limits of its
After carefully considering the SEPTA and Veolia comments, FRA has decided not to change the language proposed in § 238.135(b). However, as discussed further below, FRA is providing additional time for railroads to comply with the requirement that exterior side doors and trap doors remain closed when a train is in motion between stations. The exceptions to this requirement apply when a train is departing or arriving at a station and a crewmember needs to observe the station platform and the open door is attended by a crewmember, and when a crewmember must perform on-ground functions, such as, but not limited to, lining switches, making up or splitting trains, providing crossing protection, or inspecting the train.
While the scenarios described by SEPTA and Veolia in their separate comments do not fall under either of these defined exceptions, § 238.135(c) allows a railroad to apply for special approval from FRA's Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer to operate passenger trains with exterior side doors or trap doors, or both, open between stations. Any request for relief must include a written justification, a detailed hazard analysis, and be signed by the railroad's chief executive officer or equivalent. FRA believes this approval process is the appropriate way to handle issues involving railroads that may need relief from the requirement in § 238.135(b), rather than establish additional, generally-applicable exceptions that are better addressed on a case-by-case basis. By requiring passenger railroads to conduct a safety analysis and apply to FRA for approval for a special exception, FRA will be able to make individualized determinations that tailor any such exception to the specific circumstances involved and the safety of the affected passengers and train crews.
FRA received an additional anonymous comment regarding hours of service issues involving the trucking industry and a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration proposal. Since the comment is not germane to passenger door safety issues or this rulemaking, and its scope is not within FRA's jurisdiction, FRA did not address this comment in this final rule.
With the exception of the issues the commenters raised and FRA discussed above, FRA did not receive any comments on the proposed rule. Therefore, unless specifically noted, FRA has adopted the requirements proposed in the NPRM in this final rule.
Passenger railroads have responded to growth in ridership by expanding rail service, investing in new rail equipment, and incorporating new technologies into their passenger equipment. This has resulted in the varied arrangements of powered exterior side doors in passenger trains today. Many types of these power door systems have safety features to alert train crewmembers of an obstruction in a door.
These power door systems are complex. They employ components and electrical circuits to open and close the exterior side doors, contain door status indicators, and provide a means to determine motion and the end of the train. Power door systems operate electrically from commands given by train crews through signals from door switches, sensors, relays, and other devices that interface with and monitor the exterior side doors individually and throughout the entire trainline circuit. These various appurtenances typically act to provide a warning when exterior side doors are closing, respond to obstructions to closing doors, and prevent the doors from opening when a train is in motion. When connected to the propulsion system, these devices will inhibit the development of tractive power if an exterior side door is prevented from closing. Lock-out and by-pass systems are also employed to allow trains to operate even when equipment related to the exterior side doors is malfunctioning.
However, not all passenger cars are equipped with powered exterior side door systems. In fact, for those passenger railroads with cars equipped with manually operated exterior side doors or trap doors, some have allowed the doors to remain open between train stations to increase operating efficiency. Trap doors are metal plates that, when raised, reveal a fixed or moveable stairwell to facilitate low-level boarding. To provide high-level platform boarding, the train crew closes (or keeps closed) the trap to cover the stairwell. Trap doors are not exterior side doors, but are manually operated by the train crew to enable boarding and alighting through the exterior side doors.
FRA reviewed accident data involving passenger train exterior side doors immediately following the incident in Bradley Beach, New Jersey, discussed in Section II.B., above. From its review, FRA determined that while accidents were infrequent they could have severe consequences. FRA identified numerous factors, conditions, and components that could adversely impact the safe operation or the integrity of the door safety system of a passenger train. These include door position, controls, and status indicators, no-motion and end-of-train circuits, power failure, traction-inhibit, throttle movement, mixed consist operation, malfunctioning equipment, door operating rules, and employee knowledge of the door safety system(s) on the train he or she is operating.
As noted above, FRA decided to perform a safety assessment of 24 railroads operating passenger trains utilizing many different models of equipment in the United States. These assessments were performed to identify the risks endangering passenger and crew safety, specifically when passengers were riding upon, boarding, or alighting from trains. FRA employed analytical techniques to identify any limitations of the safety features engineered into the trains' exterior side doors and of the railroads' rules governing their employees who operate them. Each of the passenger railroads was assessed individually, and exterior side door safety concerns were found with virtually all the railroads surveyed. However, the door safety concerns varied among the railroads in nature and degree.
There are various types of trains that are designed for particular purposes. The type and sequence of locomotives and cars assembled or coupled together to form a train is referred to as the train consist. A train consist can typically be changed frequently at the railroad's discretion. As part of its assessment, FRA reviewed the predominant types of passenger train service utilized in the United States to determine the risks posed to passengers and train crews by exterior side door safety systems.
One type of service involves passenger trains with conventional locomotives in the lead pulling consists of passenger coaches and sometimes other types of cars such as baggage cars, dining cars, and sleeping cars. Such trains are common on long-distance, intercity rail routes operated by Amtrak.
Most passenger rail service in the Nation is provided by commuter railroads, which typically operate one or both of the two most common types of service: Push-pull service and multiple-unit (MU) locomotive service. Push-pull service is passenger train service
Self-propelled electric or diesel MU locomotives may operate individually in passenger train service, but typically operate semi-permanently coupled together as a pair or triplet with a control cab at each end of the train consist. During peak commuting hours, multiple pairs or triplets of MU locomotives are combined and operated together to form a single passenger train.
In Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, high-speed Acela Express passenger train service is provided using trainsets. Acela Express trainsets are train consists of specific types of passenger cars such as first class, business class, and café cars that are semi-permanently coupled between power cars located at each end of the consist. These trainsets virtually never change as the power cars and passenger cars are semi-permanently coupled and integrated together with computer controls. The power cars provide tractive power to both ends simultaneously and have a control cab from which the engineer can operate the train, but do not carry passengers.
Passenger car exterior side doors are designed for various purposes on passenger trains. Most exterior side doors are used for passenger boarding and alighting at train stations. However, exterior side doors also have other uses. For example, exterior side doors can be used for emergency responder access and passenger egress during emergency situations, whether or not the doors are normally used for passenger boarding or alighting. As previously stated, exterior side doors can also be used for non-passenger functions such as loading baggage or stocking dining car supplies. Exterior side doors that serve these purposes often vary greatly in size and dimension. In some instances, these exterior side doors are full-sized doors, while on other equipment the doors are essentially just small hatches or are compartment-sized.
Through its safety assessment of exterior side door safety systems on passenger trains, FRA reviewed several generations of equipment. FRA found a wide range of doors and corresponding door safety features with varying levels of sophistication. The level of sophistication was generally limited by the technology that was available at the time that the passenger car was manufactured and the railroad's ability to purchase, or retrofit, equipment with more sophisticated door safety features.
There are three types of exterior side doors in service today: Hinged, sliding, and plug. Hinged doors on a passenger car operate like a door in a home entranceway. They swing inward into the car, to open, and back towards the exterior of the car, to close. Exterior sliding doors on a passenger car are moving panels of various sizes that retract into pockets within the side walls of the passenger car when opening. Sliding doors can be designed with one panel or leaf that slides open and closed. Sliding doors can also consist of two bi-parting panels or leafs, which open by retracting from each other into the side wall and close by joining together in the center of the doorway. Plug doors on a passenger car are comprised of a sliding panel which opens and slides along the side of the car to open the exterior side door. However, the sliding panel does not retract into a pocket like a sliding door; instead, when closed, the door conforms to the side of the passenger car to seal out environmental noise and minimize aerodynamic resistance.
Passenger railroads use a variety of configurations for the exterior side doors on the passenger cars in their fleets. FRA reviewed passenger cars with exterior side doors located at multiple locations along the sides of the cars: At each end, at their quarter points, and in the middle.
Passenger car exterior side doors may be operated manually, or with either electro-mechanical or electro-pneumatic power. Manually operated exterior side doors are simple hinged or sliding doors that are manually operated by passengers or crewmembers at each station stop. Powered electro-mechanical doors are doors that employ an electric motor to drive a mechanical operator for opening and closing. Powered electro-pneumatic doors, like electro-mechanical doors, employ a mechanical operator for opening and closing. However, powered electro-pneumatic doors use compressed air to drive the mechanical operator instead of an electric motor. The mechanical operators provide opening and closing force to each door panel or leaf through mechanical linkage and a gearbox or similar device. All powered door systems require mechanical door operators.
FRA identified a number of key factors, conditions, and components that could impact passenger and crew safety from the use and operation of passenger train exterior side doors. These are addressed, individually, in detail below.
FRA reviewed the risk posed by the open position of exterior side doors while passenger trains were in motion. FRA determined that railroads operating passenger trains with manually operated exterior side doors cannot control whether an individual door is opened or closed unless a crewmember is present at each door. When a crewmember is not present, passengers themselves can open the exterior side doors of the cars and exit or enter the train. Therefore, the potential exists for passengers to jump off or on moving trains at stations. At the same time, FRA found that other passenger trains were purposefully run with their manually operated exterior side doors in an open position even though train crewmembers sometimes were not stationed at the doors.
Passenger trains with powered exterior side doors are normally operated with the doors closed between stations. However, some passenger railroads operated trains with their doors open between stations. These passenger stations are in close proximity to each other and alternate between high- and low-level platforms for passenger boarding and alighting. The operation of passenger trains with open exterior side doors presents significant safety concerns as passengers and crewmembers could potentially fall out of an open door while the trains are moving. Due to the safety hazards arising from operating a passenger train with open exterior side doors, FRA has determined that, with limited exceptions for crew use only, passenger
Powered exterior side doors on passenger cars are controlled and operated by door control panels, which are usually located on both sides of each car. These panels provide an interface between the train's door system and the train crew, and typically require activation with a door key. The door key is inserted into the control panel and is then used to turn the panel on or off. Once the panel is turned on, a conductor can issue commands to open or close exterior side doors by pressing buttons on the panel. Some passenger trains have door control panels that allow only local control of the exterior side doors. This means the conductor can operate the exterior side doors only in the same car as the door control panel. Other passenger trains allow their door control panels to operate all exterior side doors on the side of the train where the panel is activated. This allows the door control panel in any passenger car to open simultaneously all the exterior side doors on one side of the train. The conductor also can open or close only those doors forward of the activated panel, those doors rearward of the activated panel, or simply the single door directly adjacent to the activated panel.
FRA found many instances in which door control panels were left energized after the door control panel key was removed. This can occur when the keyhole for the door control panel key is worn or not maintained and the conductor removes the key without actually turning off the door control panel. With the door control panel energized, passengers can press the door-open button on the panel and open one or more exterior side doors on the train even when the train is still moving. This situation can occur on many different types of equipment.
As part of its assessment, FRA evaluated how the door systems on various passenger trains responded to a loss of door control power by de-energizing the door control circuit breaker. FRA found significantly different responses on various railroads when door control systems experienced a circuit failure causing a loss of power. Some exterior side doors closed, some did not close at all, and others simply stopped where they were if they were moving at the time of the failure. Additionally, in a number of instances, the train could still produce tractive power even though the door control circuit failure allowed the exterior side doors to remain open.
Employees who operate the exterior side doors of a passenger train should understand how a safety system for a door they control will respond to a loss of power. Employees can then take steps to safeguard against any safety hazards raised by the loss of power. This final rule requires all door systems on new passenger cars, and connected door systems on new locomotives used in passenger service, to be subject to a formal safety analysis that includes a FMECA before being placed into service. By requiring new passenger cars and locomotives used in passenger service to be subjected to this analysis before being placed into service, railroads will help ensure that the failure of a single component of a door safety system will not create an unsafe condition for passengers and train crewmembers.
Power door status is monitored by door position switches and can be conveyed locally or through the trainline circuit using various arrangements of lights to relay the condition of the doors to the train crew. On most passenger trains, one or more lights illuminate on the interior or exterior of a passenger car above the exterior side door that is open. The lights then extinguish when the exterior side doors are closed.
If the train's door status is configured with a door summary circuit for trainline display, one or more lights illuminate on the active door control panel when all the doors are closed on that side of the train. Therefore, if a power door did not close, the external and internal lights would remain illuminated and the trainline door status light on the door control panel would not illuminate. This door status trainline circuit is often, but not always, displayed to the engineer as a door closed light in the locomotive cab. When the light is illuminated it tells the engineer that the exterior side doors on both sides of the train are closed and the train is ready to safely leave the station.
FRA found that all trains with powered exterior side door systems had some type of door status indicators train crews could use to determine if there was an obstruction in the exterior side doors. However, in many instances on-board personnel were not using the door status indicators as intended. In some cases, crewmembers did not use these indicators because the indicators' lens color was not maintained properly and, therefore, the indicators were not reliable. In other cases, FRA found that train crews looked in the general location of an indicator light on a door control panel, but at times mistakenly read a different indicator as the door status indicator because the lens color was not uniformly maintained. Door status indicators need to be maintained properly for ready and reliable reference by crewmembers tasked with safely operating the door systems. If properly maintained, these indicators should alert train crewmembers about a possible obstruction in an exterior side door.
No-motion is an electric circuit the door safety system uses to determine if a passenger car or train is moving or not. This circuit is designed to prevent the exterior side doors of a train from opening while the train is in motion, except for a crew access door. A crew access door can be any exterior side door on a passenger train that a crewmember opens for his or her use with a door control power key. No-motion circuitry will also cause the exterior side doors to close when the train accelerates above a pre-determined speed. If the no-motion circuit (also referred to as a “no-motion system” in this document) malfunctions, the conductor cannot open the exterior side doors using trainline commands since the circuit is designed to fail safely and the door system assumes that the train is in motion. However, if such a malfunction occurs, many passenger cars are equipped with a by-pass switch that can override the no-motion circuit and enable the exterior side doors to open.
During its assessment, FRA discovered that some railroads train crews actually used the no-motion circuit to close the exterior side doors when departing stations. In these instances, train crewmembers were not closing the exterior side doors using a door control panel, but instead were using the throttle to accelerate the train and close the exterior side doors through the no-motion circuit. The assessment also identified that passenger and train crew safety was at risk on many railroads because safety-sensitive switches that could impact the door system, such as the no-motion by-pass switch, were not properly positioned or protected. An improperly positioned no-motion by-pass switch presents the risk of an undesired opening of an exterior side door while the train is in motion, which could go undetected by the train's crew.
Exterior side doors should be closed only after the train crew determines it is safe for the train to depart the station. To protect passenger and train crew safety, the no-motion by-pass switch should be secured or sealed. This will mitigate the potential of an accidental activation of this safety-critical device.
The end-of-train circuit is part of the door safety system. The circuit is used to identify the last passenger car in the train consist, or the physical end of the train, or both. Door control system manufacturers have utilized various ways to identify and convey the end of the train to the door safety system. The end of the train is identified on different passenger cars by using jumpers, manual or automatic switches, circuitry in electric couplers, marker lights, or other devices. Door safety circuits can become compromised when the end of the train is established somewhere other than the last car of the train. This situation can occur by the unintentional activation of the end-of-train circuit. For example, some passenger cars toggle switches, which are readily accessible to passengers, are used to establish the end of the train. If improperly positioned and activated by a passenger or train crewmember at a location that is not at the end of the train, all passenger cars rearward of the car with the activated end-of-train circuit would not be recognized by the door safety system. Because the door safety features in those cars would not function, this would increase the risk of a passenger becoming entangled in a door and dragged when the train departs the station.
FRA's assessment identified eight railroads on which end-of-train circuit switches were not properly positioned or protected. These switches should be secured and protected to prevent access by unauthorized personnel and unintentional activation which could compromise the safety of the door control system and go undetected by the train crew.
As touched on above, the sophistication of passenger car door safety features is just as varied as the arrangement of the exterior side doors themselves. Hinged-type manually operated exterior side doors do not utilize any specific door system safety features. Yet, FRA found that all but one model of passenger cars with manual or powered sliding-type doors employed a flexible, rubber-like strip of varying widths on the leading edge of the door. This flexible strip runs from the floor to the ceiling along the edge of the door to seal the car interior from environmental conditions. Although not necessarily intended for a door system safety purpose, this flexible strip or seal on the edge of the door is pliable and bends, which aids in pulling an obstruction free from the door. In addition, FRA found that some power door systems added a door push-back feature intended to aid in freeing an obstruction in a door. The push-back feature allows someone to push back on a closing door so that the individual can open or partially open the door and clear an obstruction. However, not all passenger cars that have a flexible strip on the edge of the door have a door push-back feature.
Power door systems on passenger cars can also be outfitted with obstruction detection systems. Obstruction detection systems use sensors to determine if something is preventing an exterior side door from closing as intended. The system will cause the exterior side door to react to an obstruction by automatically stopping the door from closing or by reversing the door movement like elevator doors. Most obstruction detection systems require the exterior side door to actually physically impact the obstruction to detect it. These types of obstruction detection systems use a pressure-sensitive edge on the leading edge of the exterior side door or door jamb, or both. If something is caught in the door, the sensitive edge becomes compressed and causes the door to react to the obstruction by stopping the closing door or by reversing the door movement. Other obstruction detection systems employ a tilting switch that detects when the door is bumped off balance by an obstruction and causes a reaction similar to doors employing a sensitive edge for obstruction detection.
There are also systems that use more sophisticated technologies to detect obstructions. These advanced systems monitor motor amperage, or air pressure in passenger cars with powered electro-pneumatic exterior side doors. These systems detect an increase in the electric current or air pressure, which tells the door safety system there is an obstruction in the exterior side doors. Other advanced obstruction detection systems do not actually require the exterior side doors to impact an obstruction to detect it. Instead, they may use photo optics or laser light beams to prevent the door from closing if something interrupts a light beam that runs along the path of the closing exterior side door. They may also use other technologies;
However, FRA found during its assessment that it was possible to become entangled in a powered exterior side door on numerous different models of equipment, even when door obstruction detection systems were utilized. In these cases, the door obstruction detection systems failed to detect either small obstructions (
FRA believes that while door obstruction detection systems reduce the risks to passenger safety and newer systems utilize more reliable technology, they do have limitations. Therefore, train crews need a clear understanding of the limitations of the safety features on the exterior side doors of the trains they are operating. When train crews do not thoroughly understand the limitations of their trains' exterior side door safety features, passengers and train crews alike could face an increased risk of serious injury or death. Crews must realize the limits of the safety features of each powered door safety system for each type of passenger vehicle they operate.
As mentioned above, door control safety systems can be connected to a train's propulsion system. On these systems, the status of powered exterior side doors is communicated through the trainline, and the door summary circuit is interlocked with the train's propulsion system. Therefore, when a powered exterior side door is open, the train cannot produce tractive power and move, a function commonly referred to as “traction inhibit.” Similarly, if an exterior side door on a train is not completely closed, and there is an obstruction in the door, the traction inhibit function prevents the train from developing tractive power and departing the station. Only after all the exterior side doors are closed as intended can the train produce tractive power and leave the station.
During its assessment, FRA found many different models of equipment in which the exterior side door safety systems were not connected to the propulsion system of the train. Consequently, these trains could produce tractive power whether or not the exterior side doors were open or closed. Thus, if a passenger became entangled in a door, the passenger could be dragged by one of these trains because they lacked a design feature to stop such a train from developing tractive power and leaving the station.
FRA also found that on many different models of passenger cars and locomotives used in passenger service with a door obstruction system and traction inhibit, it was possible for the train to produce tractive power even when an individual became entangled in an exterior side door. This unexpected condition was possible because the door obstruction system did not detect the obstruction and instead conveyed a message that all the exterior side doors were closed. Therefore, the final rule will enhance passenger and train crew safety by requiring all new passenger cars to have door safety systems which include door obstruction detection systems that release obstructions when detected.
Due to the complexity of powered exterior side doors and their controls, car manufacturers have designed door systems to respond to equipment malfunctions. If an exterior side door malfunctions, each door can be individually isolated from the trainline circuit without affecting the rest of the train. Train crews refer to this as “cutting out” or “locking-out” a door. This is especially important if the door system is connected to the train's propulsion system, as one malfunctioning exterior side door that cannot close is designed to inhibit the development of tractive power for the entire train. Therefore, many passenger cars are equipped with exterior side door lock-out switches that can disconnect power to the malfunctioning exterior side door while still allowing the trainline circuit to complete so that the train can draw tractive power and move.
During FRA's assessment, FRA observed train crewmembers that did not know how to isolate or lock-out a malfunctioning exterior side door. FRA found that, instead, train crews would often activate the door by-pass system. Such a practice presents a significant risk to safety. Properly locking-out one malfunctioning exterior side door maintains the integrity of the train's door safety system while still providing door obstruction and traction inhibit protection for all other exterior side doors on the train. However, overriding the door safety system through the door by-pass feature can undermine the safety features on all exterior side doors, including traction inhibit. Activating the door by-pass feature this way unnecessarily increases the possibility that a passenger or train crewmember could be caught in a door and dragged by a train.
If a train crew cannot identify which exterior side door is malfunctioning on its train, the train crew can utilize a door by-pass device to override the door safety system to move the train. However, as noted above, activation of the door by-pass device on many types of equipment negates some or all of the exterior side door safety features.
FRA found during its assessment that many passenger cars had exterior side door safety circuits that could become compromised by the unintentional activation of a door by-pass device. On these models of passenger cars, if a by-pass switch was activated anywhere on a passenger train it would place the entire train in door by-pass mode. This would in essence by-pass the entire train's door safety system, which presents a significant risk to passenger and crew safety. Elsewhere, FRA found that the door by-pass switch would only affect the exterior side doors of the train if it was activated in the controlling locomotive. Overall, FRA found that accidental activation of the door by-pass switch often happened without the knowledge of the train crew, whether the switch was located in the controlling locomotive cab or a trailing locomotive cab. Consequently, door by-pass devices must be sealed in an off position to mitigate the potential of an accidental activation of the door by-pass device.
However, if there is an en-route exterior side door malfunction, railroads must have a procedure for communicating to all train crewmembers that there is a defect in the train's exterior side doors, the door by-pass device has been activated, and the door safety system has been overridden.
The locomotive throttle lever is used to control the locomotive's power. It can also be used to issue commands to the powered exterior side doors. As mentioned above, some exterior side doors are manufactured so that the movement of the locomotive throttle from a position of rest to motion automatically issues a command to close all the powered exterior side doors.
However, FRA's assessment found that passenger cars responded differently to application of a train's throttle. For some powered exterior side doors, the movement of the locomotive throttle caused them to close. For other door systems, the doors would stop closing and freeze if they were in motion when the throttle was applied. Other door systems operated as intended and were not affected by the position of the throttle. In addition, concerns associated with locomotive throttle movement were further exacerbated if the passenger train was in door by-pass mode when the throttle was applied. On these trains, the throttle movement, in combination with the door by-pass feature activation, negated some or all of the exterior side door obstruction safety features.
A train's exterior side doors should be commanded to close only after the train crew determines it is safe to depart. If throttle movement can affect the functioning of a train's exterior side doors, then employee training is necessary to help ensure the train crew understands the risks involved.
Railroads routinely operate passenger trains comprised of mixed consists or different models of passenger cars, which can have incompatible door systems. Mixed consists can contain passenger cars with different types of exterior side doors, such as manual doors and powered doors, or different types of powered exterior side doors that are not compatible with each other's door safety system. When exterior side door systems are incompatible, they do not properly communicate trainline commands and are not part of a single door summary circuit. These door systems are usually incompatible due to the design of the individual passenger cars or because the door systems utilize different control systems, wiring, or operating voltages, often a result of the varying ages of the different models of passenger cars used in a mixed consist.
The operation of trains comprised of different types of passenger cars with incompatible exterior side door systems requires additional measures to help ensure passenger safety. For example, in a mixed consist train with manual and powered exterior side doors, the portion of the train with the manual doors requires train crewmembers to take extra measures to ensure the doors are closed. The operation of a mixed consist train comprised of passenger cars with different models or types of powered exterior side doors that are not compatible with each other's door safety system requires train crewmembers to take such extra measures as well. The different cars may not communicate door opening and closing commands throughout the length of the train. These door systems usually have different safety features; for example, a portion of
Train crews may need to take extra measures to ensure the safe functioning of doors in mixed consist trains they operate. These extra measures should ensure the operation of mixed consist trains provides a level of safety at least equivalent to that of a train operating with compatible exterior side door safety systems.
Passenger railroads have established sets of operating rules to provide instruction and guidance to employees on how they should act in given situations. Railroad operating rules for the functioning of passenger train exterior side door systems can vary broadly from railroad to railroad. For example, FRA found that some railroads' operating rules did not require a train's exterior side doors to be closed while the train was in motion between stations. Other railroads' rules did not define the safety limitations of each type of door safety system in the passenger cars their train crews operated and sometimes the train crews were unaware of these limitations. Some railroads had operating rules addressing use of exterior side doors and station stops, and some did require crewmembers to make platform observations for train arrivals at and departures from stations. However, often these rules did not instruct crewmembers to ensure trains did not depart from stations until all passengers had successfully boarded or alighted from the trains. Finally, FRA found that some operating rules did not address the additional steps necessary to provide continued passenger safety following activation of a safety override device, such as a door by-pass or no-motion by-pass switch.
Railroad operating rules are fundamental tools to enhance overall railroad safety. Passenger train crews need a clear understanding of the risks to safety involved in the operation of exterior side doors. They must understand the limitations of the safety features of each exterior side door system for the equipment they operate. Such an understanding is especially critical when an exterior side door safety system fails and the crew must take action to ensure passenger safety until the system can be restored back to its designed level.
FRA is amending this section to add the following new definitions to this part: By-pass, door isolation lock, door summary circuit, end-of-train circuit, exterior side door safety system, no-motion system, and trainline door circuit. FRA intends for these definitions to clarify the meaning of significant terms used in this final rule. These definitions will minimize the potential for misinterpretation of the regulatory language. RSAC recommended that FRA add these definitions to this section, and FRA agrees with RSAC's recommendation.
“By-pass” means a device designed to override a function. This term describes devices that override various safety features on a passenger train. For example, a door by-pass is a by-pass feature that when activated overrides the door summary circuit. Among its functions, the door summary circuit indicates to the controlling cab of the train that all exterior side doors are closed as intended, or locked out with a door isolation lock, or both. In some instances, train crews must use a by-pass device when a passenger train's exterior side doors or its appurtenances fail en route so the train can reach its destination.
“Door isolation lock” means a cutout/lockout mechanism installed at each exterior side door panel to secure a door in the closed and latched position, provide a door-closed indication to the summary circuit, and remove power from the door motor or door motor controls. FRA added this term because it is in the definition of a door summary circuit and helps clarify what potential information is being relayed to the controlling cab of a train by the door summary circuit.
“Door summary circuit” means a trainline door circuit that, among its functions, indicates to the controlling cab of the train that all exterior side doors are closed as intended, or locked out with a door isolation lock, or both. FRA added this term to clarify what this circuit does in relation to the operation of a passenger train and what information it provides the controlling cab of the train about the exterior side doors.
“End-of-train circuit” means a feature typically used to determine the physical end of the train, or the last passenger car in the train, or both, for the door summary circuit. FRA added this term to make clear what an end-of-train circuit does in a passenger train. For clarity, FRA changed the term to “end-of-train circuit” in the final rule rather than just “end-of-train,” as proposed in the NPRM. For additional discussion about end-of-train circuits, see the Technical Background, Section IV.F.6.
“Exterior side door safety system” means a system of safety features that enable the safe operation of the exterior side doors of a passenger car or train. The exterior side door safety system includes appurtenances and components that control, operate, and display the status of the exterior side doors, and is interlocked with the traction power control. FRA added this term to explain what types of systems or subsystems of safety features make up an exterior side door safety system.
“No-motion system” means a system on a train that detects the motion of the train. This system is normally integrated with the exterior side door safety system.
“Trainline door circuit” means a circuit used to convey door signals over the length of a train. This term is used in the definition of door summary circuit.
FRA has carefully organized the various requirements in this final rule. These requirements apply to all tiers of passenger cars and locomotives used in passenger service. In the NPRM, FRA made clear that, in addition to requirements for passenger cars, the proposed rule would apply certain requirements to locomotives used in passenger service. FRA invited comment on how the various requirements in the rule should be organized and specifically the approach the NPRM took to applying requirements to locomotives used in passenger service, including comments on any alternative approach. However, FRA did not receive any comment from the public on these or other areas of the NPRM where FRA specifically invited comment.
As discussed above in Section III, Discussion of Specific Comments and Conclusions, FRA did receive and carefully considered comments on the
FRA is adding this new section to part 238, addressed below by paragraph.
Paragraph (a) applies to powered exterior side door safety systems on new rail passenger cars, and connected door safety systems on new locomotives used in passenger service, ordered on or after April 5, 2016, or placed in service for the first time on or after February 5, 2016. This paragraph does not apply to new or existing rail passenger cars or locomotives used in passenger service with manual exterior side doors. It also does not apply to existing rail passenger cars or locomotives used in passenger service with powered exterior side doors.
Paragraph (a)(1) requires that all powered exterior side door safety systems on new rail passenger cars and connected door safety systems on new locomotives used in passenger service be built according to APTA Standard PR-M-S-18-10, “Standard for Powered Exterior Side Door System Design for New Passenger Cars” (Standard). APTA's Rail Standards Policy and Planning Committee approved this APTA Standard on February 11, 2011. The Task Force and Working Group subsequently reviewed and recommended the Standard to the full Committee, which then recommended that FRA use the Standard in this rulemaking. FRA is incorporating by reference this Standard, which contains a set of minimum safety standards for powered exterior side door safety systems on new passenger rail cars and connected door safety systems on new locomotives that are used in passenger service.
The Standard addresses design requirements and safety features that occur at three different levels: The individual door, the car, and the train. Passenger cars and passenger locomotives must be able to communicate with each other to provide for the safe use and operation of exterior side doors in passenger cars. As a result, the Standard requires the train's door summary circuit to be interlocked with the propulsion system of the train's locomotive(s). Specifically, the train may not develop tractive power if an exterior side door in a passenger car is not closed, unless the door is under the direct physical control of a crewmember.
The implementation dates in this paragraph are consistent with other applicability dates FRA imposed, and FRA believes they are achievable. This Standard is available to all interested parties online at
Paragraph (a)(2) requires powered exterior side door safety systems on all new passenger cars and connected door safety systems on new locomotives used in passenger service to be designed based on a FMECA. FRA requires such door safety systems to be subject to a FMECA to ensure door system manufacturers consider and address the failure modes of exterior side doors. As discussed in the Technical Background, Section IV.F.3, FRA learned there was great variability among different models of passenger cars on how exterior side doors reacted to a system failure. For example, when there was a loss of electricity to the door control circuit, some powered exterior side door systems responded by automatically closing the exterior side doors, while in other equipment the doors would stay open. FRA believes that subjecting these door safety systems to a FMECA will ensure that passenger car and locomotive manufacturers consider how these systems may fail and make informed decisions on the safest design approach.
Paragraph (a)(3) requires powered exterior side doors in all new passenger cars to be equipped with an obstruction detection system, and a connected system in all new locomotives used in passenger service, to identify and release an obstruction while preventing the train from developing tractive power until the obstruction is released. An obstruction detection system detects and reacts to both small and large obstructions in the powered exterior side doors. This will make boarding and alighting from passenger trains safer.
This new paragraph is necessary based on FRA's assessment of powered exterior side doors on various passenger train operations, as discussed specifically in the Technical Background, Section IV.F.7. In many instances, FRA discovered that a passenger, or his or her belongings, could be caught in a powered exterior side door of a passenger car without the door recognizing the passenger or the obstruction. As a result of this failure, some passenger trains were able to complete the door summary circuit and receive tractive power to depart even though there was an obstruction in a powered exterior side door. These types of incidents have led to serious passenger injuries and even death. FRA also learned that some door systems were unable to identify large obstructions caught in a train's exterior side doors. For example, some passenger trains could generate tractive power even when a large object like a wheelchair or walker became stuck in the exterior side doors. Passenger door systems that cannot detect these larger obstructions pose substantial safety hazards to passengers with disabilities or other passengers who may need extra assistance to board or alight from a train.
Paragraph (a)(4) prohibits the activation of a door by-pass feature in new passenger cars with powered exterior side doors and in connected locomotives from affecting an exterior side door's obstruction detection system. As discussed in the Technical Background, Section IV.F.10, FRA discovered that many passenger door safety systems could be compromised by the activation of a door by-pass device. Operating a train in door by-pass mode can negate some or all of the safety features of the exterior side door safety system, including the obstruction detection system and door status indicator.
FRA also discovered that some railroads had obstruction detection systems that were engineered into their passenger trains' exterior side doors, but did not use them and, instead, operated trains in door by-pass mode. By negating these important door safety features, the railroads created the potential for passengers to get caught in closing exterior side doors and dragged as the trains developed tractive power and departed from stations.
Therefore, FRA is requiring that obstruction detection systems in new passenger cars and connected locomotives used in passenger service function as designed, even if the train in which the equipment is being hauled is operated in door by-pass mode. This will ensure that passenger safety is not compromised by deactivating these safety features in the train's exterior side doors.
Paragraph (a)(5) requires the train crew to use a door control panel key or some other secure device to access the train's door control system. The train crew will need a key or other secure device to operate the door control panel to open or close the exterior powered
FRA makes clear that although this final rule often states requirements in terms of the duties of railroad crewmembers, any person as defined in § 238.5, including a contractor or subcontractor to a railroad, who performs any function required by this final rule, must perform that function in accordance with this rule.
Paragraph (a)(6) is related to paragraph (a)(5). This paragraph makes clear that if the door control panel key or other similar device is removed from the door control panel, the powered exterior side doors on the train cannot be opened or closed from the door control panel. A door control panel key or other similar device is required to operate the powered exterior side doors from the door control panel.
This requirement helps ensure that only the conductor or another qualified crewmember can open or close the exterior side doors from the door control panel. This requirement will minimize the possibility that passengers will open the exterior side doors in non-emergency situations when a train is entering or departing a station. However, FRA notes that under § 238.112, powered exterior side doors must continue to be equipped with a manual override device to allow passengers to open the doors in emergency situations.
Paragraph (a)(7) ensures that train throttle movement will have no effect on the proper functioning of exterior side door safety systems in new passenger cars and connected door safety systems in new locomotives used in passenger service. As discussed in the Technical Background, Section IV.F.11, FRA discovered through its door safety assessment that certain passenger car door systems were designed so that the exterior side doors would automatically close when the train's throttle was applied. As FRA understands, the rationale behind such a design is to provide an operational enhancement for the engineer to automatically command the exterior side doors to close when the throttle is applied. However, from FRA's observations during its door safety assessment, the exterior side doors on some railroads' trains would stop moving and remain open while other exterior side doors would close when the train's throttle was applied. This could result in doors being partially open while trains are in motion, thereby increasing the risk that passengers could fall out of trains and suffer injuries. Moreover, FRA also learned that powered exterior side doors on trains running in door by-pass mode reacted very differently when the throttle was applied. On these trains, the throttle movement, in combination with the door by-pass feature activation, negated some or all of the exterior side door obstruction safety features. Therefore, FRA is requiring that, for new passenger cars and locomotives used in passenger service, locomotive throttle movement does not open or close a passenger train's exterior side doors or have any other effect on the proper functioning of the train's door safety system.
Paragraph (b) applies to new rail passenger cars, with either manual or powered exterior side doors, and connected door safety systems on new locomotives used in passenger service, ordered on or after April 5, 2016, or placed in service for the first time on or after February 5, 2018. This paragraph does not apply to existing rail passenger cars or locomotives used in passenger service with either manual or powered exterior side doors.
Paragraph (b)(1) requires new passenger cars with manual or powered exterior side doors, and connected door safety systems on new locomotives used in passenger service, to be designed with a door summary circuit to prohibit trains from developing tractive power if the exterior side doors are not closed. This paragraph is necessary to prevent serious injuries from occurring when trains have their exterior side doors open while moving.
However, FRA is allowing an exception for train crew use. This requirement does not apply to an exterior side door that is under the direct physical control of a crewmember for his or her exclusive use when a train generates, or is in the process of generating, tractive power. This limited exception is necessary to help train crews make platform and other observations outside of the train. For example, train crews often open one exterior side door to ensure the train is sitting properly along the station platform before opening all of the exterior side doors and allowing passengers to board and exit from the train.
Paragraph (b)(2) requires that manual and powered exterior side doors on new passenger cars be connected to interior and exterior door status indicators, and that new locomotives used in passenger service be compatible with such indicators. The exterior side doors must be connected to interior and exterior door status indicators, usually lights, to indicate when a door is not closed. These indicators provide railroad personnel both inside the train and on the station platform a fast, easy way to visually identify whether an exterior side door is not closed as intended. FRA believes that these interior and exterior door status indicators will help train crews determine whether it is safe for trains to depart stations.
Paragraph (b)(3) requires all new passenger cars with manual or powered exterior side doors and all new passenger locomotives to be connected to a door summary status indicator located in the train's operating cab and viewable from the engineer's normal operating position. When all the exterior passenger side doors on a train are closed, the door summary status indicator, usually a light, illuminates in the engineer's operating cab. As a result, the indicator provides an easy way for an engineer to know that all the exterior side doors have been closed as intended and it is safe for the train to depart. If the indicator is not illuminated, the engineer knows that the exterior side doors are not closed and that the train's brakes should be maintained so the train does not move.
Paragraph (b)(4) requires that, for all new passenger cars with manual or powered exterior side doors, and all new locomotives used in passenger service equipped with a door by-pass system, the door by-pass system will be functional only when activated from the controlling locomotive. Putting a train in door by-pass mode allows the train to develop tractive power regardless of the status of the doors. During its door safety assessment of passenger railroads, FRA found that for many models of equipment the entire passenger train could be put into door by-pass mode by activating one of several different door by-pass switches throughout the train consist. Moreover, FRA even found that by-pass switches could be activated without the knowledge of the train crew—a dangerous situation.
Because this paragraph requires that the door by-pass switch can only be activated in the controlling locomotive of a passenger train, engineers should
Paragraph (c) identifies other sections in this part that include substantive requirements for exterior side door safety for ease of reference. These include requirements for using side doors in an emergency.
FRA is adding this new section to part 238, addressed below by paragraph.
Paragraph (a) requires that each passenger train crew verify all exterior side door by-pass devices that could affect the safe operation of the train are sealed in the non-by-pass position when taking control of the train. For example, from its door safety assessment of various passenger railroads, FRA discovered that on some railroads the door by-pass switches in the cabs of trailing locomotives could place an entire train in door by-pass mode if activated anywhere on the train. FRA believes that all train crewmembers should understand when first taking control of a passenger train whether the exterior side doors of the train are in door by-pass mode. However, when there is face-to-face relief of another train crew, the train crew coming on duty will not need to verify the status of the door by-pass devices by visual inspection. This exception will help railroad efficiency by not requiring on-coming train crews to conduct an inspection to verify whether their train is being operated in door by-pass status if they are directly notified by the out-going crew through face-to-face relief regarding the status of the train's door by-pass devices. When there is no direct face-to-face relief by the crew going off duty, the on-coming train crew must verify the status of their train's door by-pass devices.
However, paragraph (a) also allows railroads to develop a functional test to verify that the door summary status indicator is functioning as intended, instead of a visual inspection of each door by-pass device. Allowing qualified railroad personnel to conduct a functional test instead of a visual inspection of all door by-pass switches makes the verification process more efficient. Of course, the testing plan the railroad develops to replace individual visual inspections must be adequate to determine that each door safety system is functioning as intended.
Paragraph (b) requires passenger train crewmembers to notify the railroad's designated authority under the railroad's defect reporting system if a door by-pass device that could affect the safe operation of the train is found unsealed during the train's daily operation. If the train crew can test the door safety system and determine the door summary status indicator is functioning as intended, then the train may remain in service until the next forward repair point where a qualified maintenance person (QMP), as defined in § 238.5, can apply a seal, or until its next calendar day inspection, whichever occurs first. If the crew cannot determine that the door summary status indicator is functioning as intended, then the train crew must follow the procedures in paragraph (c) of this section.
Paragraph (c) requires that, when it becomes necessary to activate a door by-pass device while a train is en route, the train may continue to its destination terminal if the train crew: Conducts a safety briefing that includes a description of the location(s) where crewmembers will position themselves on the train to observe the boarding and alighting of passengers; notifies the railroad's designated authority that the train's door by-pass device has been activated; and adheres to the operating rules required by § 238.135 (“Operating practices for exterior side door safety systems”). After the train has reached its destination terminal, the train may continue in passenger service until the train's arrival at the next forward repair point or until its next calendar day inspection, whichever occurs first, if the railroad adheres to the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section before moving the equipment with an active door by-pass device.
Paragraph (c)(1) allows a passenger train with a door by-pass device activated to remain in service past its destination terminal if an on-site QMP determines it is safe to use the equipment in passenger service and repairs cannot be made at the time of inspection. If a QMP is not available, a determination to keep the equipment in service may be made based upon an on-site qualified person's (QP), as defined in § 238.5, description of the condition to a QMP offsite. This requirement will help ensure passenger safety by requiring a QMP to make the determination on whether it is safe to move the train, but will still provide the railroad with sufficient flexibility to handle an activated door by-pass device.
Paragraph (c)(2) requires that either the QP or QMP notify the crewmember in charge of the train's movement that the door by-pass device has been activated. This notification requirement ensures that the crewmember in charge of the train's movement knows the train is operating with its door by-pass device activated and that some or all of the door safety features of the train's exterior side doors may not be properly functioning. In addition, the train crew must then hold a safety briefing that includes information such as the locations where each crewmember will position himself or herself on the train to ensure that passengers board and alight from the train safely. This safety briefing helps to ensure that the train operates with the same level of safety after the door by-pass device has been activated as it did before the device was activated.
Paragraph (d) requires each passenger railroad to maintain a record of any door by-pass activation, unintended opening of a powered exterior side door, and subsequent repair(s) made to the passenger door safety system in the defect tracking system required by § 238.19. While railroads do currently maintain records concerning the malfunction of exterior side doors and subsequent repairs, FRA is not aware that railroads maintain such records when a door by-pass device has been activated or only when there has been an unintentional door opening. Collecting this information will provide useful data concerning test and maintenance intervals that are developed under this part,
Paragraph (e) is intended to prevent exterior side doors from being operated from a door control panel when the door key or other similar device has been removed. As evidenced by FRA's assessment of various passenger train door operations, this language is necessary because some trains' door safety systems have allowed the door control panel to remain energized after the door control panel key or similar device was removed from the panel. When door control panels can still be operated after the specific door key or similar device has been removed, passengers can open the train's exterior side doors by simply pressing the door open button. FRA is concerned because passengers have opened exterior side
Accordingly, this requirement mandates the use of a door panel key or a similar device to energize or activate the door control panel. The door control panel key or device will be held by the train's crew. FRA does make clear that nothing in this paragraph is meant to change any of the requirements in § 238.112 for the accessibility and operation of manual override devices for exterior side doors in an emergency situation. This paragraph does not require passengers in an emergency situation to use a key to operate any manual override device for opening powered exterior side doors required by § 238.112. Passengers and crewmembers must still be able to utilize the manual override devices for exterior side doors in an emergency situation without the use of a door key or other similar device.
Paragraph (f) requires a train to maintain the integrity of its door safety systems by proper activation of the end-of-train circuit. This includes, but is not limited to, securing the end-of-train circuit in a manner that prevents unauthorized access. The railroad must secure the end-of-train circuit to protect the integrity of the train. FRA discovered that, in many models of passenger cars, a simple switch was used to activate the end-of-train circuit and denote the end of the train. This switch was often in the vestibule area of the car and accessible to passengers. FRA also found a switch that was activated in a car other than at the end of the train. Activation of the switch eliminates from the door summary circuit all passenger car exterior side doors beyond the activated switch, allowing the potential for a passenger in one of those cars to become entangled in an exterior side door and dragged when the train departs because the door safety features do not function. This paragraph helps ensure in particular that if a railroad uses end-of-train circuit switches in its trains, the railroad takes sufficient care of the switches to prevent them from being tampered with or inadvertently activated by unauthorized users. FRA added language to this section in this final rule to clarify that railroads must ensure the integrity of the end-of-train circuit and not just prevent unauthorized access to end-of-train circuit switches on trains that use such switches to affect the end-of-train circuit.
Paragraph (g)(1) requires all exterior side door safety system override devices that could adversely affect a train's door safety system to be inactive and sealed in all passenger cars and locomotives in the train consist. This requirement applies to cab cars and MU locomotives, as well as conventional locomotives. The requirements of this paragraph are subject to the provisions of paragraph (c) of this section for a train when it is necessary to activate a door by-pass device, to ensure the train may safely continue to its destination terminal.
Paragraph (g)(2) is similar to paragraph (g)(1). However, this paragraph emphasizes that as part of the calendar day inspection, QMPs will verify that all exterior side door safety system override devices are inactive and sealed in all passenger cars and all locomotives in a passenger train's consist, including cab cars and MU locomotives, if they are so equipped. Passenger cars or locomotives that QMPs find with unsealed or active exterior side door safety system override devices are considered defective under the regulation and subject to the movement-for-repair provisions of this part.
FRA is adding this new section to part 238, addressed below by paragraph.
Paragraph (a) requires each crewmember to participate in a safety briefing that identifies each crewmember's responsibilities for the safe operation of the exterior side doors on the crewmember's train. The briefing takes place at the beginning of each crewmember's duty assignment before the train departs. This requirement helps ensure all the crewmembers involved in the operation of a passenger train understand their roles and responsibilities for the safe operation and use of the exterior side doors.
In this final rule, FRA revised the language in this paragraph to clarify that the required safety briefing must address possible door safety issues arising anytime during the crew's operation of the assigned train, including when the train arrives at and departs from a station. The briefing requirement applies to providing direction throughout the crew's entire operation of the assigned train. For example, if construction or other work will be conducted at a station platform that could negatively impact the boarding and alighting of passengers or crewmembers at a station, the crew must discuss the platform work and the steps necessary to ensure the train's doors can be safely operated at the station.
FRA invited comment from the railroad industry and the greater public on how this safety briefing should occur, but did not receive any comments during the comment period. Nonetheless, FRA makes clear that the safety briefing may be made part of other safety briefings or discussions involving the operation of the passenger train, provided each crewmember's role in the safe operation and use of the exterior side doors is clearly established.
Paragraph (b) requires all passenger train exterior side doors and trap doors to be closed when a train is moving between stations, except as provided in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2). As stated previously in Section III, Discussion of Specific Comments and Conclusions, above, FRA received comments from SEPTA and Veolia regarding this paragraph. Both SEPTA and Veolia asked FRA to allow additional circumstances when passenger train exterior side doors and trap doors may be open when a train is moving between stations. As previously explained, FRA declines to establish additional, generally-applicable exceptions beyond what is provided in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2). However, FRA is providing additional time for railroads to comply. Paragraph applies after April 5, 2016, or 60 days after the final rule takes effect. As proposed, paragraph (b) would have become applicable when the final rule took effect. In particular, this additional time will facilitate the process for SEPTA, Veolia, and any other entity to seek relief from the requirements of § 238.135(b) by applying for special approval under § 238.135(c) from FRA's Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer. Section 238.135(c) allows FRA to make individualized determinations that tailor any additional exceptions to the specific circumstances involved and the safety of the affected passengers and train crews. For more discussion of SEPTA's and Veolia's comments on this rulemaking, and FRA's response, see the Discussion of Specific Comments and Conclusions, Section III.
Paragraph (b)(1) allows a passenger train to depart from or arrive at a station with an exterior side door or trap door open when a crewmember needs to observe the station platform (paragraph (b)(1)(i)) and the open door is attended by the crewmember (paragraph (b)(1)(ii)). For instance, observing the station platform is necessary when arriving at stations so that crewmembers can determine if their train is properly
Paragraph (b)(2) allows a passenger train to move between stations with its exterior side doors and trap doors open when a crewmember must perform on-ground functions. On-ground functions include, but are not limited to, lining switches, making up or splitting the train, providing crossing protection, and inspecting the train. This exception was created because the Door Safety Subgroup thought it would be too cumbersome and an undue hardship on passenger railroads to require them to operate their trains with their exterior side doors and trap doors closed when performing on-ground functions. For example, passenger train conductors often have to exit and reenter their trains several times when lining switches to establish the proper track route for their trains. However, FRA expects that crewmembers will close any such open exterior side doors or trap doors on their trains as soon as it is practical after completing the necessary on-ground functions.
As discussed above, paragraph (c) requires that passenger railroads receive approval from FRA's Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer to operate passenger trains with their exterior side doors or trap doors, or both, open between stations except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. Any request to FRA must include: A written justification explaining why the passenger railroad needs to operate its trains in this manner (paragraph (c)(2)(i)); and a detailed hazard analysis conducted by the railroad analyzing the hazards of running its trains in this manner, including specific mitigations to reduce the safety risk to passengers and train crews (paragraph (c)(2)(ii)). The chief executive officer (CEO), or equivalent, of the organization(s) making the request must sign the request (paragraph (c)(3)). In addition, FRA added paragraph (c)(4) to this final rule to clarify that railroads may need to submit other documents and different types of information to support the request. Passenger railroads must seek this special approval from FRA before operating trains in the requested manner, so that FRA can determine if passengers and train crews riding on such trains are adequately safeguarded against personal injury. FRA makes clear that if a passenger railroad must take additional steps to adequately safeguard passengers and train crews against personal injury, FRA may condition the grant of any special approval on the implementation of any such measures within the timeframes in the approval.
Paragraph (d) requires railroads to adopt and comply with operating rules on how to safely override a door summary circuit or a no-motion system, or both, if there is an en route exterior side door failure or malfunction on a passenger train. Under this section's requirements, the railroads must provide these written rules to their employees and make them available for FRA inspection. The written rules must include: (1) Instructions to crewmembers and control center personnel describing what conditions must be present to override the door summary circuit or the no-motion system, or both (paragraph (d)(1)); and (2) steps crewmembers and control center personnel must take after the door summary circuit or no-motion system, or both, have been overridden, to help ensure continued passenger safety (paragraph (d)(2)). These paragraphs are intended to ensure a mechanism exists to communicate that a defect has occurred in a critical safety system on a passenger train and that passenger safety continues to be provided after the critical safety system is overridden.
FRA is allowing a three-year period for the requirements in this paragraph to be implemented. FRA believes this three-year period will provide railroads with adequate time to develop and train their crewmembers and control center personnel on the operating rules and instructions, and minimize any cost. FRA wants to make clear that the term “control center personnel” in this final rule includes both railroad employees and railroad contractors and subcontractors who perform control center functions.
Paragraph (e) requires each crewmember to be trained on: (1) The requirements in this section; and (2) how to identify and isolate equipment with a malfunctioning exterior powered or manual side door. For example, FRA expects that this training will cover how a crewmember determines which exterior side door is malfunctioning. FRA believes that training crewmembers is necessary to ensure that a passenger train's door safety systems are utilized to their designed level of safety. Crewmembers operating exterior side doors on passenger trains and tasked with providing passenger safety must understand the safety risks involved in the use and operation of exterior side doors.
FRA makes clear that these requirements apply to both manual and powered exterior side doors. FRA is allowing a three-year period for railroads to implement the requirements of this paragraph. This three-year period affords the railroads adequate time to train their crewmembers and minimize any cost.
Paragraph (f) requires each railroad to adopt and comply with operating rules requiring its crewmembers to determine the status of their train's exterior side doors so their train may safely depart a station. In particular, this paragraph requires crewmembers to determine there are no obstructions in their passenger train's exterior side doors before the train departs. This operating rule requirement will safeguard against passengers becoming entangled in the exterior side doors of a train when boarding and alighting the train. FRA is allowing railroads a three-year period to implement the requirements of this paragraph. In the NPRM, this requirement was proposed under § 238.135(g). However, in this final rule FRA has switched proposed §§ 238.135(f) and (g) because it flows logically that requirements about operating rules should come before requirements for conducting tests on those rules.
Paragraph (g) requires that each railroad periodically conduct operational (efficiency) tests and observations of its operating crewmembers and control center personnel to determine each individual's proficiency with the side door safety procedures for both the railroad's exterior powered and manual passenger train side doors. FRA recognizes the critical role control center personnel have in ensuring the safe movement of trains. These individuals must receive operational (efficiency) testing appropriate to their role providing door operations support
As in paragraph (e), FRA makes clear that this paragraph applies to both manual and powered exterior side doors. The rule provides railroads a three-year implementation period before requiring them to conduct operational (efficiency) tests and observations of their operating crewmembers and control center personnel to determine each individual's knowledge of the specific railroad's powered and manual exterior side door safety procedures for its passenger trains. This three-year implementation period affords the railroads adequate time to train and then begin testing their crewmembers and control center personnel on exterior side door safety procedures, and minimize any expense.
Finally, as stated above, this requirement was proposed under § 238.135(f) in the NPRM. However, in this final rule FRA has switched proposed §§ 238.135(f) and (g) for clarity.
FRA is adding this new section to part 238. FRA modified the language proposed in the NPRM for each paragraph of this section to clarify FRA's intent regarding each paragraph. Through this section, FRA is creating a positive requirement for railroads to take action to ensure that when they operate “mixed consist” trains, they operate them safely. In addition, FRA is also modifying the language proposed in paragraph (b) to clarify that entities subject to the requirements of this rule must adopt and comply with operating rules to ensure the safe operation of mixed consist trains. Each paragraph is addressed below.
Paragraph (a) requires a train made up of equipment with incompatible exterior side door systems to be operated within the constraints of each exterior side door safety system on the train. As evidenced by FRA's safety assessment of passenger railroad door systems across the country, some passenger railroads mix and match different models of passenger cars with different door safety systems when they assemble individual trains. These trains are referred to as mixed consists and can contain passenger cars with different types of exterior side doors, such as manual and powered doors. They can also be comprised of passenger cars with different models or types of powered exterior side doors that are not compatible with each other's door safety system. Because the door safety systems on mixed consist trains are not able to properly communicate the presence of an obstruction in a door, or the door's status otherwise, this paragraph requires train crewmembers to take extra steps to enhance passenger safety to a level at least equivalent to a train operating with compatible exterior side door systems. In this regard, FRA notes that in mixed consist trains with both manual and powered exterior side doors, the manual exterior side doors require extra attention by crewmembers to ensure that they are closed and it is safe to depart. In addition, FRA slightly modified the proposed language for this paragraph in this final rule to state the requirement more clearly.
Paragraph (b) requires railroads to adopt and comply with operating rules to provide for the safe use of passenger cars and locomotives used in passenger service with incompatible exterior side door safety systems when they are operated together in a mixed consist train. Once the operating rules have been adopted, complying with these rules will ensure the mixed consist train is operated with at least the same level of safety as a train with compatible exterior side door safety systems, even though the door safety systems on the various cars are incompatible. These rules must take into consideration the constraints of the door systems of the equipment operated by the railroad. For example, the operation of a mixed consist train may require additional measures to help ensure passenger safety, such as operating rules on crew positioning or providing a second look at the station platform to determine whether it is safe for the train to depart a station.
FRA also modified the proposed language in this paragraph to clarify its requirements. The modified language makes the regulatory language consistent with the regulatory language for § 238.135(d) and (g) in this final rule, which also contain requirements involving railroad operating rules.
This appendix contains a schedule of civil penalties for use to enforce this part. Because such penalty schedules are statements of agency policy, notice and comment are not required prior to their issuance.
Accordingly, FRA is amending the penalty schedule to reflect the addition of the following sections to this part: § 238.131, Exterior side door safety systems—new passenger cars and locomotives used in passenger service; § 238.133, Exterior side door safety systems—all passenger cars and locomotives used in a passenger service; § 238.135, Operating practices for exterior side door safety systems; and § 238.137, Mixed consist; operating equipment with incompatible exterior side door systems.
This final rule has been evaluated in accordance with Executive Order 12866 (
The intent of the final regulation is to increase safety by reducing the injuries caused by the operation of a passenger train's exterior side doors. The doors can cause injuries to passengers from striking or holding them as they board or alight from trains. These injuries are unintended consequences that result from normal train operations. Railroad rules governing the operation of the doors may not provide adequate information to crewmembers, for example, about when and how to use door by-pass devices and the interaction of the doors with other train systems. Although most passenger trips occur without a door incident, the consequences of improper door operations can and have resulted in serious harm and even death. In November 2006, a passenger died after being caught in the doors of a departing NJT train at the Bradley Beach, NJ station.
FRA intends to reduce door incidents and injuries in two ways. First, the final rule addresses the railroads' rules and procedures for operating doors. The final rule requires railroads to have and
The second part of the final rule concerns requirements for doors on new passenger cars and connected locomotives used in passenger service. FRA is adopting the APTA Standard discussed above containing the design requirements for door safety systems on new passenger cars ordered with powered exterior side doors, and for connected door safety systems on new locomotives used in passenger service. For example, new cars with powered exterior side doors need an obstruction detection system, a key or other secure device to activate (
FRA is requiring additional door safety features on new cars and connected locomotives. These safety features can be installed more cost-effectively in such new equipment compared to potentially requiring the retrofit of existing equipment. These safety features on new cars and connected locomotives are all currently available.
FRA analyzed the economic impacts of this rule against a “no action” baseline. The no action baseline reflects the state of the world in the absence of this final rule. The estimated costs resulting from the final rule over the 20-year period of analysis total $15.2 million undiscounted, with a present value of about $8.3 million calculated using a 7-percent discount rate (PV, 7%), and a present value of $11.5 million calculated using a 3-percent discount rate (PV, 3%). The estimated quantified benefits over a 20-year period total $83.9 million undiscounted, $43.3 million (PV, 7%), and $61.7 million (PV, 3%). These costs and benefits result in net positive benefits over 20 years of about $68.7 million undiscounted, $35.0 million (PV, 7%), and $50.2 million (PV, 3%).
In the regulatory evaluation accompanying the final rule, the burdens accounted for remain primarily the same as in the regulatory evaluation accompanying the proposed rule. The most significant change was expanding the costs resulting from section 238.135(c), which requires railroads to receive special approval from FRA to operate passenger trains with open doors between stations in circumstances other than those specifically allowed by the rule. The costs for this provision were expanded to include potential mitigations that a railroad may have to put in place to reduce the risk to passengers. In addition, after the proposed regulatory evaluation was published, DOT issued new guidance in June 2014 for the value of a statistical life that is used in estimating benefits. The guidance also updated the median growth rate in wages that affects the cost estimates. The costs and benefits have been revised in the final regulatory evaluation to reflect this new guidance. Also, the start of the period of analysis,
The final rule incurs relatively small costs and therefore has relatively high net benefits. Most of the initial burdens are expected from changes to railroad operating rules, and from the safety standards for door safety systems on new passenger trains where they can be installed cost-effectively. The largest contributor to costs is the crewmembers' task of verifying that the door by-pass devices on the train are sealed in the normal, non-by-pass mode. The quantified benefits result primarily from reduced injuries based on a count of door injuries in the past (2001-2005), and the assumption that the final rule would be 50-percent effective in reducing similar injuries and fatalities in the future. The count of door injuries used the descriptive, narrative statements on accident reports to better identify door-caused injuries (yielding about 19 potentially avoided injuries per year on average). A count of door-caused injuries using more recent data from 2011 yielded 19 injuries, similar to the average of previous years' results. There may be other additional benefits that were not quantified, such as fewer passenger claims for personal property damage. Also, as door incidents are often well-publicized in the media, reducing the number of door incidents will maintain and enhance the public's perception of safe passenger service, or goodwill toward passenger service. Furthermore, railroads for which the APTA standard may serve as an incentive to purchase new cars may have reduced door system maintenance costs as a result, as newer passenger cars can be expected to have more reliable door systems than older cars.
The costs and benefits are summarized in the tables Costs Summary and Benefits Summary, respectively.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
FRA prepared an IRFA at the time the proposed passenger door rule was published in the
However, stakeholders submitted four comments about the requirements in the NPRM. Sensotech, Inc. wanted FRA to consider Sensotech's acoustic technology for a door safety system. In response, FRA notes that it leaves the specific type of technologies used for door safety systems up to the discretion of the regulated entities. A regulated entity can choose the technology that is most cost-effective for its operations to comply with the final rule's requirements. In its comment, SEPTA asked for an additional exception from § 238.135(b). Section 238.135(b) generally requires side and trap doors to remain closed as the train travels between stations. SEPTA has operational concerns with this requirement. Veolia also expressed concern about the same section of the rule. Veolia uses a procedure that requires a conductor to verify a signal indication at a particular location. In order to verify the signal indication, Veolia believes a conductor may have to open a door while the train is moving. Veolia asked for clarification about whether its procedure would violate § 238.135(b). For both commenters, FRA responds that there are exceptions in § 238.135(b) for crew observations of a station platform and for on-ground functions such as lining switches. Furthermore, if a railroad does not qualify for the exceptions in § 238.135(b), a railroad may apply for relief under § 238.135(c). Rather than create an additional permanent exception in the final rule, FRA believes that the process in § 238.135(c) is the appropriate way to consider exceptions. Finally, one anonymous person commented about hours of service issues in the trucking industry and a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration proposal. Since the comment does not apply to this passenger door safety rulemaking, FRA is not addressing this comment in this final rule. The full text of the comments can be found in the public docket for this rulemaking on
FRA made no changes in the final rule for these public comments but did revise the regulatory language in a few sections for clarity. Some clarifications for particular sections of the rule are discussed below.
In § 238.135(a) about the crew participating in daily safety/job briefings, FRA added language to clarify that the safety briefing must discuss safe operation of the doors for situations that the crew may encounter throughout the duty dour. For example, if there was work being done on a station platform so that a portion of the platform was not available, the crew would need to discuss safely operating the doors when arriving or departing that station. The regulatory analysis for the proposed rule assumed that job briefings currently cover the variety of door-related tasks that the crew performs, including safe door operations. Both the proposed and final rules add emphasis for the crew to be aware of safe door procedures, which will reasonably include discussing situations along their route that could affect door safety. This briefing could be combined with existing safety briefings
Section 238.135(c) was modified to make it explicit that FRA may request additional information from a railroad in support of its request to operate with the doors open in circumstances other than those allowed under § 238.135(b). FRA expects only a few railroads to make such a request, none of them small entities. In addition, the regulatory analysis accompanying the NPRM already allocated time for a substantive, well-documented request, minimizing the effort that would be needed to gather additional supporting documentation.
Sections 238.137(a) and (b) concern operation of trains with mixed equipment, such as cars with different door safety systems. In the final rule, FRA is clarifying the language to make it clear that railroads must not only adopt such rules, but comply with them. In the regulatory evaluation for the proposed rule, the costs for operating rules for mixed consist trains were accounted for along with the other operating rules. Thus, it was assumed that railroads would both adopt and comply with such rules. In addition, the regulatory evaluation could not claim benefits from the operating rules in terms of reduced injuries if the operating rules were not actually used. The compliance costs result from training crewmembers in the operating rules. These costs were already accounted for in the proposed regulatory evaluation and no change in this burden is made in the final regulatory evaluation.
In discussing changes to the final regulatory evaluation, the type of burdens accounted for remain primarily the same as in the proposed rule regulatory evaluation. However, after the proposed regulatory evaluation was published, DOT issued new guidance for the value of a statistical life that is used in estimating benefits. The guidance also updated the median growth rate in wages that affects the cost estimates. The costs and benefits have been revised in the final regulatory evaluation to reflect this new guidance. Also, the start of the period of analysis,
The analysis to support that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities is presented after some information about the final rule to aid discussion.
As background, and as noted in the IRFA, the primary goal of this rulemaking is to improve the safety of passengers and employees on intercity passenger and commuter trains as they board and alight through the exterior side doors of passenger cars. For convenience, unless otherwise specified, “doors” in this analysis refers to the exterior side doors intended and normally used by passengers for boarding and alighting from the train. For most train operations, passengers use these doors getting on and off the train without incident. They generally take for granted that the doors will function safely. However, there have been some casualties that have occurred in the past, some of which had tragic consequences. These injuries and fatalities are unintended, harmful consequences to passengers and employees that have resulted from normal train operations.
Most passengers and employees have an expectation that the train exterior side doors will function safely when boarding and alighting from the train. Therefore, passengers and employees may not properly assess the potential safety risks of a door problem because door incidents are low-frequency, but potentially high-consequence events. Passengers and employees may not have all the necessary information about how a train's exterior side doors will operate in case of a problem. This information gap affects the passengers' interaction with the doors and the employees' control of the doors. For example, passengers may assume passenger train exterior side doors will bounce back continuously when an obstruction prevents the doors from closing like most elevator doors do. However, not all passenger train cars are equipped with this safety feature. Additionally, employees might not know whether the exterior side doors on a train will open or close when there has been an interruption in power. Furthermore, for trains that use marker light switches to denote the end of the train, employees may not know that activating these switches at a point other than the physical end of the train will complete the trainline door circuit at that car. This situation would effectively leave the passenger cars after the car with the marker light switch on without any exterior side door safety features.
This final rule will improve railroad safety through regulatory language establishing new design requirements, and requirements for operating practices for the use of exterior side door safety systems on passenger cars and connected locomotives. Specifically, this final rule incorporates by reference the standards for powered exterior side door safety systems on new passenger cars and connected door safety systems on new locomotives used in passenger service, from the APTA Standard PR-M-S-18-10 (“Standard for Powered Exterior Side Door System Design for New Passenger Cars”), discussed above.
The “universe” of the entities considered generally includes only those small entities that can reasonably be expected to be directly regulated by this action. Small railroads that provide passenger service are the only types of small entities that may be affected directly by this final rule.
“Small entity” is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(3) as having the same meaning as “small business concern” under section 3 of the Small Business Act. This definition includes any small business concern that is independently owned and operated, and is not dominant in its field of operation. Section 601(4) likewise includes within the definition of “small entities” not-for-profit enterprises that are independently owned and operated, and are not dominant in their field of operation.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) stipulates in its size standards that the largest a railroad business firm that is “for profit” may be and still be classified as a “small entity” is 1,500 employees for “Line Haul Operating Railroads” and 500 employees for “Switching and Terminal Establishments.” Additionally, 5 U.S.C. 601(5) defines as “small entities” governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations less than 50,000.
Some passenger railroads use contractors to perform many different functions on their railroads. For some passenger railroads, contractors operate trains and perform other safety-related functions. The contract operators are typically large freight railroads, large transportation companies, or Amtrak (a Class I railroad), which perform primary operating and maintenance functions for the passenger railroads. For the purpose of assessing this final rule's impact, the pertinent contractors are all larger contractors who perform primary operating and maintenance functions for the passenger railroads. Conversely, smaller contractors perform ancillary functions to the primary operations. The large transportation companies that are contractors are typically substantial private companies such as Herzog
Federal agencies may adopt their own size standards for small entities in consultation with SBA and in conjunction with public comment. Under that authority, FRA has published a final statement of agency policy that formally establishes “small entities” or “small businesses” as being railroads, contractors, and hazardous materials shippers that meet the revenue requirements of a Class III railroad as set forth in 49 CFR 1201.1-1, which is $20 million or less in inflation-adjusted annual revenues, and commuter railroads or small governmental jurisdictions that serve populations of 50,000 or less.
All railroads that provide intercity, or commuter or other short-haul, passenger train service, as provided in 49 CFR 238.3 (Applicability), will have to comply with all the provisions in this final rule. However, the effort to comply with this final rule is commensurate with the size of the entity, the number of trains the entity operates, the number of employees the railroad employs, and the railroad's current operating rules for the operation of its trains' exterior side doors. Tourist, historic, and excursion railroads are exempt from this final rule.
For purposes of this analysis, there are two intercity passenger railroads, Amtrak and the Alaska Railroad Corporation. Neither is considered a small entity. Amtrak is a Class I railroad and therefore not a small railroad. The Alaska Railroad is a Class II railroad and also not considered to be a small railroad per the definition of small entity in FRA's published statement of agency policy referenced above. The Alaska Railroad is owned by the State of Alaska, which has a population well in excess of 50,000. Therefore, they are not considered small entities in this analysis.
In addition to the above intercity passenger railroads, there are currently 28 other railroads that provide passenger train service in the U.S. Most of these 28 railroads are part of larger transit organizations that receive Federal funds and serve major metropolitan areas with populations greater than 50,000. Therefore, most of these are not small entities.
However, two of these 28 railroads are considered small entities: The Saratoga & North Creek Railway (SNC), and the Hawkeye Express, which is operated by the Iowa Northern Railway Company (IANR). In 2011, Hawkeye Express transported approximately 5,000 passengers per game over a 7-mile round-trip distance to and from University of Iowa (University) football games. IANR owns and operates the six bi-level passenger cars used for this small passenger operation which runs on average only seven days over a calendar year. IANR has approximately 100 employees and is primarily a freight operation totaling 184,385 freight train miles in 2010. The Hawkeye Express service has a contractual arrangement with the University, a State of Iowa institution located in Iowa City, Iowa. The population of Iowa City is approximately 69,000. The SNC began operation in the summer of 2011 and currently provides intermittent passenger train service over a 57-mile line between Saratoga Springs and North Creek, New York, making seven station stops in between. The SNC is a Class III railroad (
There are two railroads that are considered small entities for purposes of this analysis and together they comprise about 7 percent of the railroads impacted directly by this regulation. Thus, 7 percent of the impacted railroads could be considered to be a substantial number of small entities. However, these two small entities represent a much smaller portion of the total railroad industry impacted by this final rule. This is because of the small number of trains operated annually, or the small number of employees employed by these two railroads, or both.
Some passenger railroads have voluntarily been in compliance with the requirements in this final rule for some time. FRA expects that most of the skills necessary to comply with the final rule are possessed by operating crew employees and recordkeeping and reporting personnel. For the affected small entities, the additional burden of the requirements is marginal. The nature of the operations of these two small entities indicates lower over-all costs to these railroads. The Hawkeye Express has a very limited operation in the number of days the railroad operates, the low number of cars (6 bi-level cars), and the total trips made by its trains. As a result, the costs for almost all of the final rule's burdens on the Hawkeye Express are low.
There are reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance burdens associated with this regulation. FRA estimates that the total cost of the final rule for the railroad industry over a 20-year period will be $15.2 million (undiscounted)—$8.3 million (discounted at 7 percent), or $11.5 million (discounted at 3 percent). Based on information currently available, FRA estimates that 1 percent or less of the total railroad costs associated with implementing the final rule will be borne by small entities. FRA estimates that the approximate total cost for small railroads for the 20-year period could range between $75,000 and $151,000 (undiscounted) depending on discount rates and the
Turning now to the economic impacts of specific provisions of the final rule, the regulatory evaluation estimates that the requirements in § 238.133(a) (crewmember door by-pass verification) are the largest cost for railroads, accounting for about two-thirds of total discounted costs. Section 238.133(a) requires verifying that the by-pass devices to override the door safety features are sealed in the normal, non-by-pass mode. The related provision in § 238.133(b) requires by-pass devices that are found unsealed to be reported and has conditions for replacing the seal; it accounts for about 3 percent of costs. However, neither the Hawkeye Express nor SNC operates trains that use by-pass devices, and would therefore have no costs associated with this requirement.
The second most costly provision, accounting for about 16 percent of costs, is § 238.131, which implements door safety standards for new passenger cars and connected locomotives, including the industry APTA Standard. These requirements also do not impact these two small entities because they do not purchase or order new passenger cars or passenger locomotives. In fact, Hawkeye Express' operator owns the cars and locomotives. Due to the limited operations of both entities, and other factors, it is unlikely that these entities will purchase new passenger cars anytime in the near future. In addition, for all railroads, § 238.131 applies to new rail passenger cars and connected locomotives used in passenger service that are ordered on or after 120 days after the date this rule is published in the
For § 238.135, the costs will vary for these two entities. For paragraph (b) of § 238.135, which generally requires exterior side doors and trap doors to be closed when the train is moving between stations, FRA does not anticipate any cost to these small entities because both railroads currently operate with their trains' exterior side doors closed between train stations.
Paragraphs (d) and (f) of § 238.135 are focused on the railroads having sufficient operating rules to ensure the safe operation of their trains' exterior side passenger doors. Paragraph (e) requires the passenger train crewmembers to be trained on the requirements of the section (
The door safety features and their associated operating rules in the final rule are not new or novel procedures, but currently exist. All larger-volume passenger service railroads have some door operating rules; the smaller railroads may have less extensive door operating rules corresponding to the fewer types of equipment they run. In addition, for § 238.135(d) through (g), and § 238.137(b), FRA is giving railroads 1,095 days (3 years) after the date of publication of the final rule in the
The railroad industry has several significant barriers to entry, such as the need to own or otherwise obtain access to rights-of-way and the high capital expenditure needed to purchase a fleet, as well as track and equipment. Furthermore, the two railroads under consideration only compete with individual automobile traffic and serve to reduce congestion on roadways. One of the two entities, Hawkeye Express, transports passengers to a stadium from distant parking lots. The SNC provides passenger train service to tourist and other destinations between Sarasota Springs and North Creek, New York. FRA is not aware of any bus service that currently exists that competes with either of these railroads. Thus, while this final rule will have an economic impact on all passenger railroads, it will not have an impact on the competitive position of small railroads.
Pursuant to the RFA, FRA prepared and made available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing the impacts of the proposed rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603(a)). FRA did not receive any comments from small entities or comments regarding the economic impact on small entities. FRA does not expect the final rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, in lieu of preparing a final regulatory flexibility analysis, FRA will certify the final rule per section 605 of the RFA.
This final rule directly affects all railroads that provide intercity, or commuter or short-haul, passenger train service, of which there are currently 30 for purposes of this analysis (two intercity passenger railroads and 28 other railroads that provide passenger train service). FRA estimates that two of these railroads, or about 7 percent, are small entities. Therefore, this final rule will have an impact on a substantial number of small entities. FRA notes that these entities operate a small number of trains annually and employ a small number of crewmembers responsible for safe exterior side door operations.
However, FRA has determined that the economic impact on entities affected by the final rule will not be significant. The impact of the most burdensome requirement, to verify that by-pass devices are in the normal position and sealed, does not affect these entities because they do not run trains that use by-pass devices. The second most burdensome provision, requiring certain door safety features on new passenger cars and connected locomotives used in passenger service, will also not affect these entities as they are not expected to order new passenger equipment. In addition, the final rule allows additional time to meet these requirements. The
FRA is submitting the information collection requirements in this final rule for review and approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions; searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed data; and reviewing the information. For information or a copy of the paperwork package submitted to OMB, contact Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, FRA, at 202-493-6292, or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Records Management Officer, Office of Information Technology, FRA, at 202-493-6132, or via email at the following addresses:
Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the collection of information requirements should send them directly to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: FRA Desk Officer. Comments may also be sent via email to the Office of Management and Budget at the following address:
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information requirements contained in this final rule between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
FRA cannot impose a penalty on persons for violating information collection requirements which do not display a current OMB control number, if required. FRA intends to obtain current OMB control numbers for new information collection requirements resulting from this rulemaking action prior to the effective date of this final rule. The OMB control number, when assigned, will be announced by separate notice in the
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), requires FRA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.” Under Executive Order 13132, an agency may not issue a regulation with federalism implications that imposes substantial direct compliance costs and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or the agency consults with State and local government officials early in the process of developing the regulation. Where a regulation has federalism implications and preempts State law, the agency seeks to consult with State and local officials in the process of developing the regulation.
FRA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria in Executive Order 13132. This final rule will not have a substantial effect on States or their political subdivisions, and it will not affect the relationships between the Federal government and States or their political subdivisions, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. In addition, FRA determined this regulatory action will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on States or their political subdivisions. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
However, this final rule could have preemptive effect by operation of law under certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety statutes, specifically the former Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, repealed and recodified at 49 U.S.C. 20106, and the former Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act (LIA) at 45 U.S.C. 22-34, repealed and re-codified at 49 U.S.C. 20701-20703. Section 20106 provides that States may not adopt or continue in effect any law, regulation, or order related to railroad safety or security that covers the subject matter of a regulation prescribed or order issued by the Secretary of Transportation (with respect to railroad safety matters) or the Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to railroad security matters), except when the State law, regulation, or order qualifies under the “essentially local safety or security hazard” exception to section 20106. Moreover, the Supreme Court has interpreted the former LIA to preempt the field of locomotive safety.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39, 19 U.S.C. 2501
FRA has assessed the potential effect of this rulemaking on foreign commerce and believes that its requirements are consistent with the Trade Agreements Act. The requirements are safety standards, which, as noted, are not considered unnecessary obstacles to trade. Moreover, FRA has sought, to the extent practicable, to state the requirements in terms of the performance desired, rather than in more narrow terms restricted to a particular design or system.
FRA has evaluated this final rule under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
In analyzing the applicability of a CE, the agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant a more detailed environmental review through the preparation of an EA or EIS.
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, and DOT Order 5610.2(a) (91 FR 27534, May 10, 2012) require DOT agencies to achieve environmental justice as part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The DOT Order instructs DOT agencies to address compliance with Executive Order 12898 and requirements within the DOT Order in rulemaking activities, as appropriate. FRA has evaluated this final rule under Executive Order 12898 and the DOT Order and determined it will not cause disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority populations or low-income populations.
FRA has evaluated this final rule under the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, dated November 6, 2000. This final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply, and a tribal summary impact statement is not required.
Under section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency “shall, unless otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector (other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law).” Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that “before promulgating any general notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and before promulgating any final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published, the agency shall prepare a written statement” detailing the effect on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. When adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the equivalent value of $100,000,000 in year 2014 dollars is $155,000,000.
Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.”
FRA has evaluated this final rule under Executive Order 13211. FRA determined this final rule is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Consequently, FRA has determined that this regulatory action is not a “significant energy action” within the meaning of the Executive Order.
Consistent with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
As required by 1 CFR 51.5, FRA has summarized the standard incorporated by reference and shown its reasonable availability in the section-by-section analysis of this rulemaking document.
Incorporation by reference, Passenger equipment, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends part 238 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133, 20141, 20302-20303, 20306, 20701-20702, 21301-21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
(a)
(1) Be built in accordance with APTA standard PR-M-S-18-10, “Standard for Powered Exterior Side Door System Design for New Passenger Cars,” approved February 11, 2011. In particular, locomotives used in passenger service shall be connected or interlocked with the door summary circuit to prohibit the train from developing tractive power if an exterior side door in a passenger car is not closed, unless the door is under the direct physical control of a crewmember for his or her exclusive use. The incorporation by reference of this APTA standard was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy of the incorporated document from the American Public Transportation Association, 1666 K Street NW., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20006 (telephone 202-496-4800;
(2) Be designed based on a Failure Modes, Effects, Criticality Analysis (FMECA);
(3) Contain an obstruction detection system sufficient to detect and react to both small and large obstructions and allow the obstruction to be released when detected;
(4) Be designed so that activation of a door by-pass feature does not affect the operation of the obstruction detection system;
(5) Require a door control panel key or other secure device to activate a door control panel;
(6) Not be operated from a door control panel when the door control panel key or other secure device is removed; and
(7) Not be affected by the movement or position of the locomotive throttle. A train's throttle position shall neither open nor close the exterior side doors on the train.
(b)
(1) Designed with a door summary circuit and so connected or interlocked as to prohibit the train from developing tractive power if an exterior side door in a passenger car is not closed, unless the door is under the direct physical control of a crewmember for his or her exclusive use;
(2) Connected to interior and exterior side door status indicators;
(3) Connected to a door summary status indicator that is readily viewable to the engineer from his or her normal position in the operating cab; and
(4) If equipped with a door by-pass device, designed so that the by-pass device functions only when activated from the operating cab of the train.
(c)
(a)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(c)
(1) An on-site QMP shall determine that repairs cannot be made at the time and it is safe to move the equipment in passenger service. If a QMP is not available on site, these determinations may be made based upon a description of the condition provided by an on-site qualified person (QP) to a QMP offsite; and
(2) The QP or QMP shall notify the crewmember in charge of the movement of the train that the door by-pass device has been activated. The train crew must then hold a safety briefing that includes information such as the locations where each crewmember will position himself or herself on the train to ensure that passengers board and alight from the train safely.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(2) As part of the equipment's calendar day inspection, all exterior side door safety system override devices must be inactive and sealed in all passenger cars and all locomotives in the train consist, including cab cars and MU locomotives, if they are so equipped.
(a) At the beginning of his or her duty assignment prior to the train's departure, each crewmember must participate in a safety briefing that identifies each crewmember's responsibilities relating to the safe operation of the train's exterior side doors, including responsibilities for the safe operation of the exterior side doors when arriving at or departing a station.
(b) After April 5, 2016, all passenger train exterior side doors and trap doors must be closed when a train is in motion between stations except when:
(1) The train is departing or arriving at a station if:
(i) A crewmember needs to observe the station platform; and
(ii) The open door is attended by the crewmember; or
(2) A crewmember must perform on-ground functions, such as, but not limited to, lining switches, making up or splitting the train, providing crossing protection, or inspecting the train.
(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, passenger railroads must receive special approval from FRA's Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer to operate passenger trains with exterior side doors or trap doors, or both, open between stations.
(2) Any request for special approval must include:
(i) A written justification explaining the need to operate a passenger train with its exterior side doors or trap doors, or both, open between stations; and
(ii) A detailed hazard analysis, including a description of specific measures to mitigate any added risk.
(3) The request must be signed by the chief executive officer (CEO), or equivalent, of the organization(s) making the request.
(4) FRA may request that the passenger railroad submit additional information to support its request before FRA approves the request.
(d) No later than December 6, 2018, each railroad shall adopt and comply with operating rules on how to safely override a door summary circuit or no-motion system, or both, in the event of an en route exterior side door failure or malfunction on a passenger train. Railroads shall provide these written rules to their crewmembers and control center personnel and make them available for inspection by FRA. These written rules shall include:
(1) Instructions to crewmembers and control center personnel, describing what conditions must be present in order to override the door summary circuit or no-motion system, or both; and
(2) Steps crewmembers and control center personnel must take after the door summary circuit or no-motion system, or both, have been overridden to help provide for continued passenger safety.
(e) No later than December 6, 2018, each passenger train crewmember must be trained on:
(1) The requirements of this section; and
(2) How to identify and isolate equipment with a malfunctioning exterior powered or manual side door.
(f) No later than December 6, 2018, each railroad shall adopt and comply with operating rules requiring train crewmembers to determine the status of their train's exterior side doors so that their train may safely depart a station. These rules shall require crewmembers to determine that there are no obstructions in their train's exterior side doors before the train departs.
(g) Beginning December 6, 2018, each railroad shall periodically conduct operational (efficiency) tests and observations of its operating crewmembers and control center personnel as appropriate to their roles, to determine each individual's knowledge of the railroad's powered and manual exterior side door safety procedures for its passenger trains.
(a) A train made up of equipment with incompatible exterior side door systems shall be operated within the constraints of each such door system.
(b) No later than December 6, 2018, each railroad shall adopt and comply with operating rules to provide for the safe use of equipment with incompatible exterior side door systems when utilized in a mixed consist.
Failure to observe any condition for movement of defective equipment set forth in § 238.17 will deprive the railroad of the benefit of the movement-for-repair provision and make the railroad and any responsible individuals liable for penalty under the particular regulatory section(s) concerning the substantive defect(s) present on the unit of passenger equipment at the time of movement.
Failure to observe any condition for the movement of passenger equipment containing defective safety appliances, other than power brakes, set forth in § 238.17(e) will deprive the railroad of the movement-for-repair provision and make the railroad and any responsible individuals liable for penalty under the particular regulatory section(s) contained in part 231 of this chapter or § 238.429 concerning the substantive defective condition.
The penalties listed for failure to perform the exterior and interior mechanical inspections and tests required under § 238.303 and § 238.305 may be assessed for each unit of passenger equipment contained in a train that is not properly inspected. Whereas, the penalties listed for failure to perform the brake inspections and tests under § 238.313 through § 238.319 may be assessed for each train that is not properly inspected.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review (RTR) and the rule review the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities under the national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In this action, we are finalizing several amendments to the NESHAP based on the review of these standards. These final amendments add limitations to reduce organic and inorganic emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from specialty coating application operations; remove exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) so that affected units will be subject to the emission standards at all times; and revise provisions to address recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to periods of SSM. These final amendments include a requirement to report performance testing through the EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). This action also makes clarifications to the applicability, definitions, and compliance demonstration provisions, and other technical corrections. The EPA estimates that implementation of this rule will reduce annual HAP emissions by 58 tons.
This final action is effective on December 7, 2015.
The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0830. All documents in this docket are listed on the
For questions about this final action, contact Ms. Kim Teal, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5580; fax number: (919) 541-5450; and email address:
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the final action for the source categories listed. To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the Internet through the EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at:
Additional information is available on the RTR Web site at
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by February 5, 2016. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. “Major sources” are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures, processes, methods, systems or techniques, including but not limited to those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination of the above.
For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations.
In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them “as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)” no less frequently than every 8 years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(f).
The NESHAP for the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities source category (surface coating) (henceforth referred to as the “Aerospace NESHAP”) was promulgated on September 1, 1995 (60 FR 45956), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG. As promulgated in 1995, the Aerospace NESHAP applies to the surface coating and related operations (
The Aerospace NESHAP applies to organic HAP emissions from cleaning operations, depainting operations, primer application operations, topcoat
Prior to the amendments being finalized here, the Aerospace NESHAP did not contain control requirements for specialty coating operations, as specified in 40 CFR 63.741(f) and in 40 CFR 63.742 (
Although the EPA did not include emission limitations for specialty coatings in the Aerospace NESHAP finalized in 1995 or in any subsequent amendments prior to the amendments being finalized here, the EPA included volatile organic compounds (VOC) content limits for the specialty coating categories in the 1997 Aerospace Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document.
Organic HAP emissions from cleaning and depainting operations occur from the evaporation of the volatile portion of the cleaning solvents or chemical strippers. Emissions from cleaning operations are typically fugitive in nature and occur at most processing steps. Emissions from depainting operations that occur within a booth or hangar are typically captured and exhausted through a stack, although some emissions may be fugitive in nature (
Organic HAP emissions from coating (primers, topcoats, specialty coatings, and chemical milling maskants) application operations occur from the evaporation of the solvent contained in the coatings. These emissions occur during the application of the coatings on aerospace vehicles or parts, which may take place in large open areas, such as hangars, or in partially or fully enclosed spaces, such as within spray booths.
Organic HAP emissions from cleaning solvents and waste occur from evaporation of the volatile portion of the cleaning solvent or waste while it is being handled or stored. These emissions are fugitive in nature, occurring from each solvent and waste container.
Some coatings contain compounds that are inorganic HAP. Inorganic HAP emissions from coatings occur during the application of the coating if it is applied using spray guns. These inorganic HAP emissions are particles of the spray-applied coating, commonly referred to as “overspray,” that do not adhere to the surface being coated. Like the organic HAP emissions from the operations, the emissions of the inorganic HAP may occur in large open areas, such as hangars, or in partially or fully enclosed spaces, such as within spray booths. However, coatings that contain inorganic HAP are typically applied in spray booths equipped with exhaust filters to capture coating overspray. Inorganic HAP are not emitted from coatings applied with non-spray methods, such as brushes, rollers, or dip coating, because the coating is not atomized with these methods.
Inorganic HAP emissions from depainting operations may occur from non-chemical methods, such as plastic and other types of dry media blasting, used to strip an aerospace vehicle. (Chemical stripping techniques do not release inorganic HAP.) These emissions occur as particulates that are generated during the blasting process. The operation is typically carried out within a large hangar equipped with a ventilation system and particulate filtration device (
The Aerospace NESHAP, prior to the amendments being finalized here, specified numerical emission limits for organic HAP emissions from primer, topcoat, chemical milling maskant application operations and chemical depainting operations; equipment and filter efficiency requirements for dry media blasting depainting operations and spray-applied coating operations; composition requirements and equipment standards for cleaning operations; and work practice standards for waste handling and storage operations.
The organic HAP emission rates for primers, topcoats, and chemical milling maskants are in the format of grams of HAP per liter of coating (g/L), or pounds/gallon (lb/gal), less water. Alternative limits are also provided for VOC in the format of g/L (or lb/gal), less water and exempt (non-VOC) solvents. Alternatively, a control system (
The Aerospace NESHAP also provides operating requirements for the application of primers or topcoats that contain inorganic HAP, including control of spray booth exhaust streams with either particulate filters or waterwash systems (40 CFR 63.745(g)).
The amendments being finalized here require controlling organic and inorganic HAP emissions from specialty coating operations. They establish organic HAP and VOC content limits for 57 specialty coating categories, and also require specialty coating operations to meet the same inorganic HAP control requirements as for primers and topcoats. (The Aerospace CTG and appendix A to the Aerospace NESHAP define 56 categories of specialty coatings. The number of limits and the number of categories defined are different because some defined
For cleaning operations (including hand-wipe cleaning), the Aerospace NESHAP specifies that cleaning solvents meet certain composition requirements or that the cleaning solvents have a composite vapor pressure of no more than 45 millimeters mercury (mm Hg) (24.1 inches of water) (40 CFR 63.744(b)). Work practice measures are also required (40 CFR 63.744(a)). Four work practice alternative techniques are specified for spray gun cleaning, and work practice standards are specified for flush cleaning operations (40 CFR 63.744(c) and (d)).
The Aerospace NESHAP also specifies requirements for depainting operations. Where there are no controls for organic HAP emissions from chemical depainting operations, the rule prohibits organic HAP emissions from chemical depainting operations, with the exception that 26 gallons of HAP-containing chemical stripper (or, alternatively, 190 pounds of organic HAP) may be used for each commercial aircraft stripped, or 50 gallons (or 365 pounds of organic HAP) for each military aircraft for spot stripping and decal removal (40 CFR 63.746(b)(1) through (3)). Where there are controls for organic HAP emissions from chemical depainting, emissions must be reduced (
The handling and storage of waste that contains HAP must be conducted in a manner that minimizes spills (40 CFR 63.748).
On February 17, 2015 (80 FR 8392), the EPA proposed amendments to the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities NESHAP that included the following:
• Requirements to limit organic and inorganic HAP emissions from specialty coating application operations;
• The addition of reporting requirements for reporting of performance testing through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX);
• Revisions related to the application of emission standards during SSM periods;
• Amendments to simplify recordkeeping and reporting for facilities using compliant coatings; and
• Several minor technical amendments.
This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR provisions of CAA section 112 for the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities source category. This action also finalizes other changes to the NESHAP including the following:
• Requirements to limit organic and inorganic HAP emissions from specialty coating application operations;
• The addition of reporting requirements for reporting of performance testing through the EPA's CDX;
• Revisions related to the application of emission standards during SSM periods;
• Amendments to simplify recordkeeping and reporting for facilities using compliant coatings; and
• Several minor technical amendments and clarifications of the applicability of the NESHAP and definitions.
This section introduces the final amendments to the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities NESHAP being promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112(f). The EPA proposed no changes to the Aerospace NESHAP based on the risk review conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f). Specifically, as we proposed, we are finalizing our determination that risks from the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities source category are acceptable, considering all of the health information and factors evaluated and also considering risk estimation uncertainty, the ample margin of safety, and the absence of adverse environmental effects. The EPA received no new data or other information during the public comment period that affected that determination. Therefore, we are not requiring additional controls and are thus readopting the existing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2).
We determined that there are no developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards for this source category. The EPA proposed no changes to the Aerospace NESHAP based on the technology review conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). As explained in section IV.B of this preamble, in response to public comments the EPA conducted a technology review for waste storage and handling operations since proposal. However, the technology review identified no developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards for waste storage and handling operations. The EPA received no new data or other information during the public comment period that affected the technology review determinations for primer and topcoat application operations; chemical milling maskant application operations; cleaning operations; and chemical and dry media blasting depainting operations. Therefore, we are not finalizing revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).
We are finalizing amendments to the Aerospace NESHAP under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) to add emission standards for specialty coating application operations at facilities in the source category, which previously were not subject to control requirements under 40 CFR 63.745. Emission standards for specialty coating operations were included in the proposed amendments published on February 17, 2015. We are finalizing, as proposed, the organic HAP content and alternative VOC content limits for specialty coatings, with the exception of minor changes to the coating category definitions. We are finalizing the proposed requirements for specialty coating application equipment requirements, with the exception of minor changes to clarify the types of equipment and methods that are permitted for certain types of coating materials. We are also finalizing, as proposed, the requirements for controlling inorganic HAP emissions from specialty coating operations, with the exception of minor changes to make these requirements consistent with
We are finalizing, as proposed, changes to the Aerospace NESHAP to eliminate the SSM exemption. Consistent with
This rule also finalizes, as proposed, revisions to several other Aerospace NESHAP requirements. We describe the revisions in the following paragraphs.
To increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility, we are finalizing, as proposed, a requirement that owners and operators of aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports through the EPA's CDX Web site using an electronic performance test report tool called the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). This requirement to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA does not require any additional performance testing and applies only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that are supported by the ERT.
We are finalizing the proposed amendments to include an alternative compliance demonstration that will allow facilities to use coating manufacturers' supplied data to demonstrate compliance with the HAP and VOC content limits for all coating types (primers, topcoats, specialty coatings, and chemical milling maskants). In response to comments, we are also finalizing a change that would allow any facility that is not using the averaging provisions in 40 CFR 63.743(d) to keep only annual records of consumption of each coating instead of having to keep monthly records. The EPA originally proposed that facilities using the alternative compliance demonstration could keep annual records instead of monthly records; facilities that were using test methods to determine HAP or VOC content of coatings would still need to keep monthly records.
In response to comments, we are also finalizing a provision that would add EPA Method 311, Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and Coatings, as the reference method for determining the HAP content of primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings. This change was made as a result of comments received on the proposed alternative compliance demonstration and on the addition of HAP and VOC content limits for specialty coatings.
Also in response to comments, we are finalizing a change that would allow facilities that use spray booths to control inorganic HAP emissions to use an interlock system between the surface coating equipment and the monitoring system for the booth's filtration system. The interlock system will automatically shut down the surface coating equipment if the monitored parameters for the filtration system deviate from the allowed operating range.
In response to comments, the EPA is clarifying the applicability of the requirements for the handling and storage of spent cleaning solvents and HAP-containing wastes in 40 CFR 63.744(a) and 63.748 relative to subpart GG and the regulations in 40 CFR parts 262 through 268 (including the air emission control requirements in 40 CFR part 265, subpart CC) that implement the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These changes include removing and reserving 40 CFR 63.741(e), and revising 40 CFR 63.744(a) and 63.748 to specify requirements for spent cleaning solvents and solvent-laden applicators, and for organic HAP-containing waste that are not handled and stored in compliance with the regulations that implement RCRA.
In addition, we are finalizing, as proposed, several miscellaneous minor changes to improve the clarity of the rule requirements.
We are also finalizing minor changes to the NESHAP in consideration of comments received during the public comment period for the proposed rulemaking, as described in section IV.K of this preamble.
The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this action are effective on December 7, 2015.
The compliance date for the revised SSM requirements and the electronic reporting requirements for existing aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities is the effective date of the standards, December 7, 2015.
The compliance date for existing specialty coating application operations with the requirements to control organic HAP and inorganic HAP emissions from specialty coating application operations in 40 CFR 63.745 is December 7, 2018. The 3-year compliance date is based on the time needed for facilities to identify new coatings that comply with the HAP and VOC content limits and, in some cases, to receive approval to use them in certain aircraft, to upgrade coating application equipment, and to develop recordkeeping and reporting systems to demonstrate compliance. As discussed in section IV.J.3 of this preamble, this was revised from the proposed 1-year compliance period based on public comments.
New sources must comply with all of the standards immediately upon the effective date of the standard, December 7, 2015, or upon startup, whichever is later.
The EPA is requiring owners and operators of aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports through the EPA's CDX using the CEDRI. As stated in the proposal preamble (80 FR 8422, February 17, 2015), the EPA believes that the electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability, will further assist in the protection of public health and the environment and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community. Electronic reporting can also eliminate paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors and providing data quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public.
As mentioned in the preamble of the proposal (80 FR 8422, February 17,
We anticipate that fewer or less substantial information collection requests (ICRs) in conjunction with prospective CAA-required technology and risk-based reviews may be needed. We expect this to result in a decrease in time spent by industry to respond to data collection requests. We also expect the ICRs to contain less extensive stack testing provisions, as we will already have stack test data electronically. Reduced testing requirements would be a cost savings to industry. The EPA should also be able to conduct these required reviews more quickly. While the regulated community may benefit from a reduced burden of ICRs, the general public benefits from the agency's ability to provide these required reviews more quickly, resulting in increased public health and environmental protection.
Air agencies will benefit from more streamlined and automated review of the electronically submitted data. Having reports and associated data in electronic format will facilitate review through the use of software “search” options, as well as the downloading and analyzing of data in spreadsheet format. The ability to access and review air emission report information electronically will assist air agencies to more quickly and accurately determine compliance with the applicable regulations, potentially allowing a faster response to violations, which could minimize harmful air emissions. This benefits both air agencies and the general public.
For a more thorough discussion of electronic reporting required by this rule, see the discussion in the preamble of the proposal (80 FR 8422, February 17, 2015). In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, control strategy development, and other air pollution control activities, having an electronic database populated with performance test data will save industry, air agencies, and the EPA significant time, money, and effort while improving the quality of emission inventories, air quality regulations, and enhancing the public's access to this important information.
For each issue, this section provides a description of what we proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket.
Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we conducted a residual risk review and presented the results of this review, along with our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in the February 17, 2015, proposed rule for the Aerospace NESHAP (80 FR 8392). The results of the risk assessment are presented briefly in Table 2 of this preamble, and in more detail in the residual risk document,
Our screening analysis for worst-case acute impacts based on actual emissions indicated the potential for one HAP, ethylene glycol ethyl ether acetate, from one facility, to have hazard quotient (HQ) values above 1, based on its reference exposure level (REL) value. The EPA evaluated screening estimates of acute exposures and risks for each of the HAP at the point of highest potential off-site exposure for each facility. In the case of military operations, acute impacts could be evaluated within the official fenceline of the installation because of the mix of residential, military, industrial, and commercial activities on most military bases. However, the acute impacts would still be evaluated outside the perimeter of the actual aerospace manufacturing and rework facility. Of the 144 aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities, 143 had an estimated worst-case HQ less than or equal to 1 for all HAP.
In the multipathway risk screening analysis, the results of the worst-case Tier I screening analysis indicated that emissions of neither cadmium compounds nor mercury compounds, which are persistent and bioaccumulative HAP (PB-HAP), exceeded the screening emission rates. Neither dioxins nor polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), which are also PB-HAP, are emitted by any source in the source category.
In the environmental risk screening analysis, the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP (other than lead compounds, which were evaluated differently) indicated that the individual modeled Tier 1 concentrations for mercury and cadmium did not exceed any ecological benchmark for any facility in the source category. For lead compounds, we did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for lead, indicating adequate protection against damage to animals, crops, and vegetation. For Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) and Hydrochloric acid (HCl), the average modeled concentration around each facility (
The facility-wide chronic MIR and TOSHI were estimated based on emissions from all sources at the identified facilities (both MACT and non MACT sources). The results of the facility-wide assessment for cancer risks indicated that 44 facilities with aerospace manufacturing and rework processes had a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR was 20-in-1 million, primarily driven by arsenic and chromium (VI) compounds, from internal combustion engines. The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category was estimated to be 0.5, primarily driven by emissions of hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate from specialty coatings operations.
We weighed all health risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, and we proposed that the residual risks from the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities source category are acceptable.
We then considered whether the Aerospace NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health and whether more stringent standards are necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. In considering whether the standards should be tightened to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, we considered the same risk factors that we considered for our acceptability determination and also considered the costs, technological feasibility and other relevant factors related to emissions control options that might reduce risk associated with emissions from the source category. As noted in the discussion of the technology review in the preamble to the proposed rule (80 FR 8416-8419), no measures (beyond those already in place or that were proposed under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (d)(3)) were identified for reducing HAP emissions from the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities source category. Therefore, we proposed that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
Further, we proposed that more stringent standards would not be necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect, and this determination has not changed.
During the public comment period, the EPA received only two corrections affecting two emission sources at one facility in the risk modelling database, and both corrections reduced the emissions from that one facility. Because the residual risk analysis performed for the proposed rule had already found that the risks were acceptable with an ample margin of safety, the EPA did not repeat the risk analysis using these revised data.
The comments received on the proposed risk review were generally supportive of our determination of risk acceptability and ample margin of safety analysis. A summary of these comments and our responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0830).
For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, we have determined that the risks from the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities source category are acceptable and provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. In addition, for the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, we have determined that more stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety or adverse environmental effects have changed. Therefore, we are not revising the Aerospace NESHAP to require additional controls pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2) based on the residual risk review, and are thus readopting the existing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2).
The EPA performed a technology review for the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities source category and summarized the results of that review in the preamble to the proposed rule (80 FR 8416-8419). The technology review covered the following emission source types in this source category: Primer and topcoat application operations; chemical milling maskant application operations; cleaning operations; and chemical and dry media blasting depainting operations. For each of these emission source types, the EPA's technology review found that there were no new developments in practices, processes and control technologies. As a result, the EPA did not propose to revise the Aerospace NESHAP standard requirements for any of these emission source types pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
For waste storage and handling operations, the EPA determined that the practical effect of the provisions in 40 CFR 63.741(e) is that all HAP-containing wastes generated in aerospace manufacturing and rework operations are subject to RCRA regulations and are not subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 63.748. The EPA proposed that, because all of these HAP-containing wastes are subject to regulation under RCRA and not subject to 40 CFR 63.748, there would be no need to conduct a technology review of the standards for handling and storage of waste.
As proposed, the EPA is making no changes to the Aerospace NESHAP standard requirements in the final rule pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
We received comments in support of and against the proposed technology review and our determination that no revisions were warranted under CAA section 112(d)(6). A summary of these comments and our responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0830).
The EPA received one comment that disagreed with the determination that no technology review was needed for the standards for the storage and handling of waste in 40 CFR 63.748. The commenter argued that the EPA may not exempt a major source from CAA section 112 standards and may not evade the need to perform a CAA section 112(d)(6) review by referring to a different statute (
The EPA received a second comment that the EPA's technology review did not address whether the current standards were adequate to control polycyclic organic matter (POM) emissions from the aerospace manufacturing and rework source category. The EPA disagrees with this comment. The only POM compound the EPA identified from Aerospace manufacturing and rework surface coating operations is naphthalene. The EPA conducted a technology review for the control of all organic HAP emissions, including naphthalene, from cleaning operations, primer and topcoat operations, chemical depainting operations, and chemical milling maskant operations. These technology reviews were included in the docket for the proposed rulemaking. The EPA also compared the 1990 naphthalene baseline emission inventory for the aerospace industry (79 FR 74661, December 16, 2014)
For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule and in section IV.B.3 of this preamble, we determined there were no new developments in practices, processes and control technologies. Since proposal, neither the technology review nor our determinations regarding new developments in practices, processes and control technologies have changed. Therefore, we are not revising the Aerospace NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) as a result of our technology review.
In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the EPA had erred in establishing emissions standards for sources of HAP in the NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing (67 FR 26690, May 16, 2003), and consequently vacated the rules.
The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, the amendments that remove the exemption for specialty coating operations found at 40 CFR 63.741(f) and is adding limits for specialty coating operations, including organic HAP and VOC content limits, application equipment requirements, and requirements to limit inorganic HAP emissions.
As explained at proposal, in the Aerospace NESHAP, the EPA made essentially the same error in failing to regulate sources of HAP within this source category (80 FR 8399). Specifically, in the Aerospace NESHAP, the EPA exempted specialty coatings from the standards established for other surface coating operations in the same source category, even though the EPA identified specialty coatings as a “coating related operation” and a source of HAP, as documented in the preamble to the proposed subpart GG. The issues cited by the EPA that complicated the regulation of specialty coatings, which were identified in the preamble to the proposed rule and noted by the commenter, do not remove the EPA's obligation to regulate these coatings under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3). Indeed, the EPA identified achievable standards for VOC emissions from the same coatings and incorporated them into the Aerospace CTG only a few years after the NESHAP was promulgated. As previously explained, in developing MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures, processes, methods, systems or techniques, including but not limited to those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination of the above. The identified achievable standards for VOC emissions from the same coatings that were incorporated into the Aerospace CTG are processes, measures and
Moreover, in several recent rulemakings, we have chosen to fix underlying defects in existing MACT standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), provisions that directly govern the initial promulgation of MACT standards (see National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Petroleum Refineries, October 28, 2009, 74 FR 55670; and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Group I Polymers and Resins; Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations; Pharmaceuticals Production; and the Printing and Publishing Industry, April 21, 2011, 76 FR 22566). We believe that our approach is reasonable because using those provisions ensures that the process and considerations are those associated with initially establishing a MACT standard, and it is reasonable to make corrections using the process that would have been followed if we had not made an error at the time of the original promulgation.
We also disagree with the comment that the EPA is not mandated to regulate
For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule and in our comment responses in section IV.C.3 of this preamble, we determined that the EPA should regulate specialty coating operations pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). Since proposal, the EPA's rationale and legal justification for that decision have not changed. Therefore, in the final rule, we are including standards to limit emissions of organic and inorganic HAP from specialty coating operations.
The EPA proposed to establish standards for specialty coatings at aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities with organic HAP content limits that are equivalent to the VOC content limits for specialty coatings included in the Aerospace CTG. The EPA proposed that the same application equipment requirements that apply to primer and topcoat application operations apply to specialty coatings. The EPA also proposed limits for emissions of inorganic HAP from spray-applied specialty coatings by revising the requirements to use spray booths with filters meeting minimum efficiency requirements for the spray application of primers and topcoats that contain inorganic HAP so they also apply to specialty coatings. Additionally, we proposed that the low-volume exemption provisions in the current Aerospace NESHAP for primers, topcoats and chemical milling maskants be revised to include specialty coatings.
The EPA is including a definition of “non-HAP material” in 40 CFR 63.742, and revising 40 CFR 63.741(f) to exclude non-HAP coatings, strippers, maskants, and cleaning solvents from the requirements to reduce organic HAP emissions from aerospace manufacturing and rework operations. The final rule also clarifies that only the organic HAP content limits for all types of coatings are enforceable (
The EPA is amending 40 CFR 63.741(f) in the final rule to exempt coatings that have been designated as “classified national security information” and amending 40 CFR 63.742 to add the definition of “classified national security information.” The EPA is revising the definition in Appendix A to subpart GG of “electric or radiation-effect coating” to change the word “classified” to “classified national security information.”
The EPA is also revising the definition of “electrostatic discharge and electromagnetic interference (EMI) coating” in Appendix A to subpart GG to reflect all of the uses of these coatings on aerospace vehicles and components.
(1) Only the organic HAP limits are enforceable;
(2) Coatings that do not contain organic HAP are not covered by the rule; and
(3) For coatings that do not contain exempt solvents that are also HAP, VOC content may be used to demonstrate compliance with the organic HAP limits as an alternative to determining organic HAP content directly.
The commenter argued that CAA section 112 does not allow for the setting of VOC limits, except as a surrogate for HAP content, and then only in situations in which the HAP content could not exceed the VOC content. Therefore, the use of the VOC content to demonstrate compliance with the HAP content limits can only apply when the coating does not contain any exempt solvents that are HAP. The commenter argued that the VOC content would effectively cap the HAP content in those coatings with no exempt solvents.
The commenter also argued that under either approach, coatings that do not contain any organic HAP cannot be subject to the HAP content limits or the VOC limits as a surrogate for HAP, and the rule should include a provision to clarify this. The commenter argued that facilities can use coating formulation information to establish whether or not the coatings contain organic HAP.
The final rule also clarifies that only the organic HAP content limits are enforceable (
The commenter recommended that the EPA amend 40 CFR 63.742 with an additional definition for the term “Classified National Security Information” to read as follows:
For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, in the comment responses in section IV.D.3 of this preamble, and in the response to comments document in the docket for this rulemaking, we are finalizing the proposed requirements for specialty coatings with respect to HAP and VOC content limits as proposed and with the changes described in section IV.D.2 of this preamble.
The EPA proposed that specialty coating application operations be subject to the same application equipment requirements in 40 CFR 63.745(f) that apply to primer and topcoat application operations. These requirements include the use of either non-spray application methods (
The EPA is revising the application equipment requirements in 40 CFR 63.745(f) since proposal to make the following changes in the final rule:
• Exclude the application of adhesives, sealants, maskants, caulking materials, and inks from the application equipment requirements. (These coatings will be still subject to the organic HAP content limitations in 40 CFR 63.745(c).)
• Exclude from the application equipment requirements the application of any high-solids coating (not just specialty coatings) that contains less than 20 grams per liter of VOC for coatings that do not contain exempt solvents that are HAP, or 20 grams per liter of HAP for coatings that do contain exempt solvents that are HAP.
• Exclude from the application equipment requirements the application of all coatings (not just specialty coatings) applied using hand-held application equipment with a paint cup capacity that is equal to or less than 3.0 fluid ounces (89 cubic centimeters). The exclusion from the application equipment requirements is also limited to the spray application of no more than 3.0 fluid ounces of coating in a single application or “job” (
• Include high-efficiency airless spray guns and air-assisted airless spray guns in the list of allowable application methods for all coatings (not just specialty coatings).
• Revise 40 CFR 63.745(f)(1) and (f)(2) to clarify that the high-efficiency application equipment requirements apply only to spray-applied coating operations, as defined in 40 CFR 63.742, and remove the references to non-spray application methods.
The final rule includes a definition of “spray-applied coating operation” in 40 CFR 63.742 to clarify the applicability of the requirements in 40 CFR 63.745(f) and (g).
For specialty coating operations, the final rule also provides an alternative to the application equipment equivalency demonstration requirements in 40 CFR 63.750(i) so owners and operators may apply specialty coatings using any other coating application method capable of achieving emission reductions or a transfer efficiency equivalent to or better than that provided by HVLP, electrostatic spray, air-assisted airless, or airless application. To use this option, the owner or operator must also maintain records demonstrating the transfer efficiency achieved.
In addition to the methods in (f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(ix), specialty coatings may be applied by flow coating, web coating, coil coating, touch-up markers, marking pens, trowels, spatulas, daubers, rags, sponges, and mechanically and/or pneumatic-driven syringes.
Therefore, in order to clarify and simplify the requirements of 40 CFR 63.745(f) in the final rule, the EPA is removing the references to these non-spray application methods and is revising the language of this section to clarify that these requirements apply to only spray-applied coating operations. The final rule is also adding a definition of “spray-applied coating operations” to 40 CFR 63.742. The definition of spray-applied coating operation added to 40 CFR 63.742 includes a list of application methods that are excluded from this definition, and these exclusions include, but are not limited to, the non-spray application methods that were formerly listed in 40 CFR 63.745(f) and the additions suggested by the commenters.
Finally, the commenter argued that screen printing and ink jet technology should be listed as approved application methods because they each achieve nearly 100-percent transfer efficiency, which is higher than the transfer efficiency of HVLP spray guns.
For specialty coatings, any other coating application method capable of achieving emission reductions or a transfer efficiency equivalent to or better than that provided by HVLP, electrostatic spray, air-assisted airless, or airless application. Any owner or operator using an application method pursuant to this subparagraph shall maintain records demonstrating the transfer efficiency achieved.
For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, in the comment responses in section IV.E.3 of this preamble, and in the response to comments document in the docket for this rulemaking, we are finalizing requirements for specialty coatings with respect to application equipment methods, as proposed, and with the changes described in section IV.E.2 of this preamble.
The EPA proposed that specialty coating application operations that include the spray application of coatings that contain inorganic HAP be subject to the same standards for inorganic HAP emissions in 40 CFR 63.745(g) that apply to primer and topcoat application operations. These requirements include the use of a spray booth or similar enclosure that is fitted with filters on the exhaust and minimum filtration efficiency requirements for the exhaust filters.
The EPA is revising the inorganic HAP control requirements in 40 CFR 63.745(g) since proposal to make the following changes:
• Clarifying in 40 CFR 63.745(g) that the inorganic HAP control requirements apply to only spray-applied coatings, and adding a definition of “spray-applied coating operations” to 40 CFR 63.742.
• Excluding from the inorganic HAP control requirements coatings applied from a hand-held device with a paint cup capacity that is equal to or less than 3.0 fluid ounces (89 cubic centimeters). The exclusion from the inorganic HAP control requirements is also limited to the spray application of no more than 3.0 fluid ounces of coating in a single application or “job” (
• Clarifying that the use of portable enclosures that meet the same filtration requirements as for spray booths can be used to comply.
• Allowing facilities that use spray booths to control inorganic HAP emissions to use an interlock system that will automatically shut down the surface coating equipment if the monitored parameters for the filtration system deviate from the allowed operating range.
The commenter recommended that the operations subject to the inorganic HAP control requirements be clarified by adding the following definition to 40 CFR 63.742:
(1) Application of coating using powder coating, hand-held non-refillable aerosol containers, or non-atomizing application technology, including but not limited to paint brushes, rollers, flow coating, dip coating, electrodeposition coating, web coating, coil coating, touch-up markers, marking pens, trowels, spatulas, daubers, rags, sponges, mechanically and/or pneumatic-driven syringes, and inkjet machines.
(2) Application of adhesives, sealants, maskants, caulking materials, and inks.
For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, in the comment responses in section IV.F.3 of this preamble, and in the response to comments document in the docket for this rulemaking, we are finalizing the proposed requirements for specialty coatings with respect to the requirements for controlling inorganic HAP emissions as proposed and with the changes described in section IV.F.2 of this preamble.
The EPA proposed to revise 40 CFR 63.750 to include alternative compliance demonstration provisions for all coatings subject to the Aerospace NESHAP (primers, topcoats, specialty coatings and chemical milling maskants). If the manufacturer's supplied formulation data or calculation of HAP and VOC content indicates that the coating meets the organic HAP and VOC content emission limits for its coating type, as specified in 40 CFR 63.745(c) and 63.747(c), then the owner or operator would not be required to demonstrate compliance for these coatings using the test method and calculations specified in 40 CFR 63.750(c), (e), (k), and (m), or to keep the associated records and submit reports associated with these methods and calculations. Instead, the owner or operator would be able to rely on the manufacturers' formulation data and calculation of the HAP or VOC content to demonstrate compliance. However, the owner or operator would continue to be required to maintain purchase records and manufacturers' supplied data sheets for these compliant coatings. Owners or operators of facilities using these coatings would also continue to be required to handle and transfer these coatings in a manner that minimizes spills, apply these coatings using one or more of the specified application techniques and comply with inorganic HAP emission requirements.
The EPA has revised 40 CFR 63.750(c) (Organic HAP content level determination—compliant primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings) and 63.750(k) (Organic HAP content level determination—compliant chemical milling maskants) to add a provision that owners and operators may add non-HAP solvents to coatings that meet the organic HAP and VOC content limits as supplied by the manufacturer and added language to 63.752(c) and (f) to specify the records that must be kept to demonstrate compliance using this provision.
The EPA revised 40 CFR 63.741(f) to clarify that subpart GG does not apply to coatings that do not contain HAP, but owners and operators can include these non-HAP coatings in averaging as long as records are kept of the non-HAP coatings used for averaging.
The EPA is revising the definition of coating in 40 CFR 63.742 to be consistent with the definition used in other more recent surface coating NESHAP.
We are also finalizing a change made since proposal as an outgrowth of comments to add EPA Method 311, Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and Coatings, as the reference method for determining the HAP content of primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings.
The requirements of this subpart also do not apply to primers, topcoats, specialty coatings, chemical milling maskants, strippers, and cleaning solvents
The commenter argued that this could be interpreted to mean that the rule would regulate coatings that contain no HAP, if they contained VOC above the levels specified in that sentence. The commenter argued that this is likely to have been unintentional because the EPA has the authority to regulate only sources of HAP under CAA section 112, and the EPA cannot regulate sources of VOC that are not sources of HAP. The commenter argued, however, that aerospace facilities should have the option to use coatings with no HAP to demonstrate compliance using the coating content averaging provisions of 40 CFR 63.750(d) and (f) to encourage the development and use of non-HAP coatings. The commenter recommended that the following provision should be added to 40 CFR 63.741(f) to clarify the exemption:
The requirements of this subpart also do not apply to specialty coatings containing HAP at concentrations less than 0.1 percent by mass for carcinogens or 1.0 percent by mass for carcinogens, as determined from manufacturer's representations, such as in a material safety data sheet or product data sheet, or testing, except that if an owner or operator chooses to include one or more such coatings in averaging under §63.743(d), then the recordkeeping requirements of §63.752(c)(4) shall apply.
Coating means a liquid, liquefiable, or mastic composition that is applied to the surface of an aerospace vehicle or component and converted by evaporation, cross-linking, or cooling, to form a decorative, protective, or functional solid film or the solid film itself. Coating application with handheld, non-refillable aerosol containers, touch-up markers, marking pens, or the application of paper film or plastic film which may be pre-coated with an adhesive by the manufacturer are not coating operations for the purposes of this subpart.
The EPA is also excluding materials in handheld, non-refillable aerosol containers, touch-up markers, and marking pens from the definition of coating because these types of coatings have been excluded from the definition of “coating” or “coating operation” in other surface coating NESHAP. Aerosol coatings have been excluded from the subpart GG emissions limits because they are included in the list of specialty coatings in Appendix A to subpart GG.
The EPA is not adding the suggested language that a coating is “a liquid, liquefiable, or mastic composition that is applied to the surface of an aerospace vehicle or component and converted by evaporation, cross-linking, or cooling, to form a decorative, protective, or functional solid film or the solid film itself.” The EPA believes that this language is not needed because the revised definition will now include the following as examples of coatings: Paints, sealants, liquid plastic coatings, caulks, inks, adhesives, and maskants. The EPA believes that these examples will be at least as illustrative as the language suggested by the commenter and will be consistent with the definition of “coatings” in other EPA rules.
The definition of coating in the final rule reads as set forth in 40 CFR 63.742.
For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, in the comment responses in section IV.G.3 of this preamble, and in the response to comments document in the docket for this rulemaking, we are finalizing the proposed requirements for specialty coatings with respect to the compliance requirements as proposed and with the changes described in section IV.G.2 of this preamble.
The EPA proposed that owners and operators of aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports by direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer using EPA-provided software. The direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer is accomplished through the EPA's CDX using the CEDRI. The CDX is the EPA's portal for submittal of electronic data using the EPA-provided ERT to generate electronic reports of performance tests and evaluations. The ERT generates an electronic report package that will be submitted using the CEDRI. The submitted report package will be stored in the CDX archive (the official copy of record) and the EPA's public database called WebFIRE. All stakeholders would have access to all reports and data in WebFIRE and accessing these reports and data will be very straightforward and easy (see the WebFIRE Report Search and Retrieval link at
The submission of performance test data electronically to the EPA applies only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that will be supported by the ERT. The ERT contains a specific electronic data entry form for most of the commonly used EPA reference methods. A listing of the pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT is available at
The EPA is making no changes to the proposed electronic reporting requirements and they are being finalized as proposed.
Comments were received regarding the proposed electronic reporting requirements and were generally supportive. The comments and our specific responses to those comments can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0830).
For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule and in the response to comments document in the docket for this rulemaking, we are finalizing the requirements for electronic reporting as proposed.
In its 2008 decision in
We have eliminated the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent with
In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA took into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, did not propose alternate standards for those periods. Information on periods of startup and shutdown received from the facilities through CAA section 114 questionnaire responses indicated that emissions during these periods do not exceed the emissions during normal operations. The facilities do not perform the regulated surface coating operations unless and until their control devices (
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by definition sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment. The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level “achieved” by the best controlled similar source and, for existing sources, generally must be no less stringent than the average emission limitation “achieved” by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level “achieved” by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the D.C. Circuit has recognized, the phrase “average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of” sources “says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.”
Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might occur. As a result, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not “reasonably” foreseeable.
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with the CAA section 112 standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable and was not instead caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation.
If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission standard is warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate.
In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, CAA section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations.
We proposed to revise the entry in the General Provisions table for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the “yes” in column 2 to a “no.” Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We proposed instead to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.743(e) that reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The former language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterized what the general duty entailed during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there was no need to differentiate between normal operations and SSM events in describing the general duty. Therefore the language the EPA proposed for 40 CFR 63.743(e) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
We also proposed to revise the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the “yes” in column 2 to a “no.” Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposed requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.743(e).
We proposed to revise the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the “yes” in column 2 to a “no.” Generally, these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA proposed to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary.
We proposed to revise the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the “yes” in column 2 to a “no.” The former language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempted sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in
We proposed to revise the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the “yes” in column 2 to a “no.” Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA instead proposed to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.749(j). The performance testing requirements we proposed to add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from being considered “representative” for purposes of performance testing. The proposed performance testing provisions specified that performance testing of controls must be conducted during representative operating conditions of the applicable source and may not take place during SSM periods of the applicable controlled surface coating operations, controlled chemical milling maskant application operations or controlled chemical depainting operations. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA proposed to add language that requires the owner or operator to record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make available to the Administrator such records “as may be necessary to determine the condition of the performance test” available to the Administrator upon request, but does not specifically require the information to be recorded. The regulatory text the EPA proposed to add to this provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the information.
We proposed to revise the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the “yes” in column 2 to a “no.” The cross-references to the general duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
We proposed to revise the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the “yes” in column 2 to a “no.” Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA proposed that
We proposed to revise the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the “yes” in column 2 to a “no.” Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA proposed to add such requirements to 40 CFR 63.752(a). The regulatory text we proposed to add differs from the General Provisions it is replacing in that the General Provisions requires the creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring equipment. The EPA proposed that this requirement apply to any failure to meet an applicable standard and proposed to require that the source record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the “occurrence.” The EPA also proposed to add to 40 CFR 63.752(a) a requirement that sources keep records that include a list of the affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods include mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters (
We proposed to revise the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the “yes” in column 2 to a “no.” When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.752(a).
We proposed to revise the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the “yes” in column 2 to a “no.” When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
We proposed to revise the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the “yes” in column 2 to a “no.” Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting requirements for SSM periods. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA proposed to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.753(a). The replacement language added to 40 CFR 63.753(a) differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We proposed language that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning such events in the semi-annual report already required under this rule. We proposed that the report must contain the number, date, time, duration and the cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
Examples of such methods include mass balance calculations, measurements when available or engineering judgment based on known process parameters (
We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, because plans will no longer be required. The proposed amendments will, therefore, eliminate the cross reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications will be no longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
As discussed above, we proposed to revise the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5), by changing the “yes” in column 2 to a “no.” Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for SSM events when a source failed to meet an applicable standard, but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require owners and operators to report when actions taken during a SSM event were not consistent with an SSM plan, because plans will no longer be required, and other reports and records will be used to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable standard and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard.
We have not changed any aspect of the SSM provisions for the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities source category since the proposal.
Comments were received regarding the proposed revisions to remove the SSM exemptions for the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities source category. The comments and our specific responses to those comments can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0830).
For the reasons provided above, provided in the preamble for the proposed rule and provided in the comment summary and response document available in the docket, we have removed the SSM exemption from the Aerospace NESHAP; eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption; and removed or modified inappropriate, unnecessary or redundant language in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are finalizing our proposed determination that facilities comply with the standards at all times and no additional standards are needed to address emissions during startup or shutdown periods.
The EPA proposed that the compliance date for the proposed amendments would be the effective date of those amendments (
The compliance date for existing specialty coating operations to comply with the amended requirements in 40 CFR 63.745 has been revised since proposal from 1 year from the effective date of this rule to 3 years from the effective date of this rule.
One commenter noted that the EPA acknowledged the lengthy period of time needed to qualify new coatings with respect to the technology review performed for primer and topcoat operations. Another commenter argued that 1 year is shorter than compliance periods provided in any other surface coating NESHAP and in other RTR standards. The commenter noted that the CTG limits generally have been applied only to facilities in non-attainment areas, and facilities in attainment areas may be faced with the need to reformulate some coatings. The commenter also argued that the application equipment and spray booth filtration requirements for specialty coatings will also be new requirements for all facilities using specialty coatings, and additional time may be needed to revise title V operating permits for new or upgraded spray booths, or to allow for averaging or alternative compliance demonstrations. The commenter added that, because of the large number of specialty coatings, additional time is also needed to develop compliance systems (even for facilities that previously were required to comply with the primer and topcoat operation standards), determine the VOC and HAP content of these coatings, and setting up recordkeeping and reporting systems.
For the reasons provided in the preamble for the proposed rule, in the comment responses in section IV.J.3 of this preamble, and in the comment summary and response document available in the docket, we are finalizing the proposal to require that all of the amendments in the final rule will be effective on December 7, 2015, with one exception. The one exception is the compliance date for existing specialty coating affected sources (
The EPA proposed no changes to the standards for cleaning operations in 40 CFR 63.744 and for the standards for the handling and storage of waste in 40 CFR 63.748.
Based on public comments received on the proposal, the EPA is clarifying the applicability of the requirements for the handling and storage of spent cleaning solvents and HAP-containing wastes in 40 CFR 63.744(a) and 63.748 relative to subpart GG and the regulations in 40 CFR parts 262 through 268 (including the air emission control requirements in 40 CFR part 265, subpart CC) that implement the RCRA. These clarifying changes include the following:
• Removing and reserving 40 CFR 63.741(e);
• Revising 40 CFR 63.744(a) to specify that fresh and spent cleaning solvents, and solvent-laden applicators that are not handled and stored in compliance with 40 CFR parts 262 through 268 (including the air emission control requirements in 40 CFR part 265, subpart CC) must comply with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.744(a)(1) through (a)(4); and
• Revising 40 CFR 63.748 to specify that wastes that contain organic HAP from aerospace surface coating operations (primer, topcoat, specialty coating, chemical milling maskant, and chemical depainting operations) that are not handled and stored in compliance with 40 CFR parts 262 through 268 (including the air emission control requirements in 40 CFR part 265, subpart CC) must be handled and stored as follows:
(a) Conduct the handling and transfer of wastes that contain organic HAP to or from containers, tanks, vats, vessels, or piping systems in such a manner that minimizes spills during handling and transfer; and
(b) Store all waste that contains organic HAP in closed containers.
First, the commenter argued that the CAA requires a review of the existing emission standards at least every 8 years after promulgation, including reviewing developments in practices, processes, and control technologies. The commenter added that the EPA argued that “there is no need to do a technology review” in the current rulemaking because the EPA sets standards for
In addition, the commenter argued that the EPA has not provided any data or other evidence showing that all aerospace waste is exempt from the current standards that apply to aerospace facilities, nor has it shown that aerospace waste and storage handling is actually regulated by RCRA. The commenter stated that the EPA cites no RCRA regulations that regulate the emissions of these operations, including their hazardous air emissions, much less any such regulations that do so effectively. The commenter argued that unless the EPA can show that all aerospace waste storage and handling operations' air emissions are appropriately regulated by RCRA, at least as stringently as CAA section 112(d) and (f) require, then its refusal to review these standards is arbitrary and capricious.
The commenter argued that the EPA's stated reason for originally exempting certain waste (that is subject to RCRA) from the CAA waste handling and storage standards conflicts with and does not support a refusal to do a CAA section 112(d)(6) review now. The commenter noted that the EPA states in the current rule preamble that it promulgated the original exemption to try to avoid creating “potential conflicts” with RCRA. However, the commenter argued that the agency's explanation for the original exemption was actually more nuanced as the EPA stated that it was promulgating the exemption “so that the . . . standards would not require less strict handling and storage of waste than the RCRA requirements.” The commenter argued that there is no indication that it would create “potential conflicts” for the EPA to review the existing CAA standards to see if there are “developments” that it should account for in revised standards, as the CAA requires, to assure stronger standards than currently apply under either CAA or RCRA. The commenter explained that it would be fully consistent with the originally stated objective of assuring sufficiently strict requirements for the EPA to perform the requisite review now and would allow the EPA to assess and determine whether the CAA standards are up to date and sufficiently stringent. The commenter added that if the EPA performs the requisite CAA review and finds that there are “developments” in waste storage and handling, the EPA will then need to revise the standards to assure that they satisfy CAA section 112(d), including CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3). As part of this analysis, the EPA can ensure the standards are not less stringent than what is required under RCRA, and thus avoid any potential conflicts, according to the commenter.
The commenter argued that the reviews required by CAA sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) are both necessary in part to assure that there are appropriate emission standards in place for HAP emitted by aerospace waste storage and handling operations. The commenter stated that the EPA has no authority to exempt major sources from CAA section 112 standards. The commenter noted that the EPA acknowledged that it also may not set no control standards. The commenter added that these must meet a particular stringency test as defined by CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3). The commenter argued that the EPA may not evade these CAA responsibilities by referring to a different statute (
The commenter noted that it is unclear whether the EPA included waste handling and storage operations in its CAA section 112(f)(2) risk assessment. The commenter argued that the EPA did not state whether it included emissions from waste storage and handling operations in the CAA section 112(f)(2) review, which requires assessing risks to public health and the environment under the existing standards.
Finally, the commenter argued that the EPA may not rely on the original exemption for certain waste operations because that, in turn, is unlawful under CAA section 112(c) and (d). Where Congress intended to allow the EPA to exempt sources from CAA section 112 standards based on the existence of standards under other statutes, it did so expressly, according to the commenter. See,
First, the EPA has established standards for waste storage and handling operations under 40 CFR 63.744 and 63.748 that are already not subject to requirements under RCRA.
The provisions under 40 CFR 63.744(a)(1) and (a)(2) require that spent cleaning solvent and spent solvent-laden materials (
The provisions in 40 CFR 63.741(e) provide that “All wastes that are determined to be hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-580) (RCRA) as implemented by 40 CFR parts 260 and 261, and that are subject to RCRA requirements as implemented in 40 CFR parts 262 through 268” are not subject to the requirements of subpart GG. The EPA included this provision so that the standards in subpart GG would not potentially require less stringent handling and storage of waste than the RCRA requirements. At the same time, the EPA made a determination that, for wastes subject to RCRA, no more stringent controls for HAP air emissions were achievable. The hazardous waste storage requirements implemented in the RCRA requirements represented the most stringent controls achievable.
However, the EPA recognizes that the inclusion of this language under 40 CFR 63.741(e) can lead to confusion over the materials and activities that are subject to the requirements of subpart GG, specifically 40 CFR 63.744(a) and 63.748. The EPA believes that some entities could read this provision as exempting from subpart GG all waste materials and activities that are eventually subject to RCRA even before they are placed in RCRA-covered
Therefore, the EPA is removing and reserving 40 CFR 63.741(e), and revising 40 CFR 63.744(a) and 63.748 to clarify the requirements for the handling and storage of spent solvents and other wastes relative to subpart GG and RCRA. The EPA is revising 40 CFR 63.744(a) to specify that fresh and spent cleaning solvents, and solvent-laden applicators that are not handled and stored in compliance with 40 CFR parts 262 through 268 (including the air emission control requirements in 40 CFR part 265, subpart CC) must comply with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.744(a)(1) through (a)(4).
The EPA is revising 40 CFR 63.748 to specify that wastes that contain organic HAP from aerospace surface coating operation wastes from primer, topcoat, specialty coating, chemical milling maskant, and chemical depainting operations that are not handled and stored in compliance with 40 CFR parts 262 through 268 (including the air emission control requirements in 40 CFR part 265, subpart CC) must be handled and stored as follows:
(1) Conduct the handling and transfer of wastes that contain organic HAP to or from containers, tanks, vats, vessels, or piping systems in such a manner that minimizes spills during handling and transfer; and (2) store all waste that contains organic HAP in closed containers.
The EPA has determined that these changes will ensure that all spent solvents and other wastes that contain organic HAP that are generated from aerospace surface coating operations are handled and stored so that emissions are minimized through the application of MACT controls (
The EPA conducted a technology review of the standards for cleaning operations in 40 CFR 63.744, and the results of that review were included in the docket for the proposed rulemaking. In that technology review, the EPA concluded that there were no new developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for cleaning operations. Those controls of air emissions from cleaning operations (
The EPA has also reviewed the requirements for the handling of waste under RCRA that would be applicable to RCRA wastes generated from aerospace surface coating operations, and the EPA has determined that there were no new developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for the handling of waste from surface coating operations beyond the current requirements in RCRA, including the air emission control requirements in 40 CFR part 265, subpart CC.
With respect to the question of whether the EPA included waste handling and storage in the risk assessment required by CAA section 112(f)(2), the risk assessment included data on emissions associated with waste handling operations. The EPA ICR that collected information in 2011 requested information from cleaning operations (including emissions from the handling and storage of spent cleaning solvent and solvent-laden materials) and information on emissions from any tanks associated with the cleaning, surface coating, or chemical depainting operations. These data encompass all of the potential sources of HAP emissions that would be associated with waste handling and storage associated with the cleaning operations or with other (non-cleaning) surface coating waste storage and handling. The EPA included these HAP emissions data in the inputs to the air quality modeling and risk assessment completed by the EPA in making the residual risk determination under CAA section 112(f)(2).
For the reasons provided above in section IV.K.3 of this preamble, we are revising 40 CFR 63.744(a) and 63.748 to clarify the relationship between the requirements for the handling and storage of spent cleaning solvent and waste in subpart GG relative to the regulations implementing RCRA.
The EPA proposed the following technical corrections to subpart GG:
• Revising 40 CFR 63.743(a)(2) to match the section title in 40 CFR 63.5.
• Revising 40 CFR 63.743(a)(8) to correct the reference to paragraph 63.6(i)(12)(iii)(B) by changing the “(1)” to an “(i).”
• Revising 40 CFR 63.744(a) to correct and clarify the format of the reference to 40 CFR 63.744(a)(1) through (4).
• Correcting the ordering of 40 CFR 63.744(a)(3) and (4); currently paragraph (a)(4) is printed before (a)(3).
• Correcting the paragraph numbering for 40 CFR 63.746(b)(4)(ii)(C) by changing paragraph (C) from a lower case to upper case “C.”
• Correcting the numbering of the tables in 40 CFR 63.745 to account for the proposed addition of Table 1 to that section to include specialty coating limits.
• Revising 40 CFR 63.749(d)(4) to correct the references to 40 CFR 63.749(d)(4)(i) through (d)(4)(iv) and (e).
• Revising 40 CFR 63.750(g)(6)(i) to remove the letters “VR/FD” that were inadvertently included.
The EPA did not receive any comments on these proposed changes. Therefore, these changes have been incorporated into the final rule as proposed.
The public comments on the proposed rule included requests for the following technical corrections to subpart GG in addition to those discussed directly above:
One commenter recommended that the first full sentence of 40 CFR 63.753(c) should be revised to include specialty coating application operations to clarify that this section applies to specialty coating applications. The EPA agrees with this comment and is making this clarifying change.
One commenter requested that the EPA change the specialty coating category name for “Corrosion Prevention System” in Appendix A to subpart GG to “Corrosion Prevention Compound” to match the naming convention used in Table 1 to subpart GG. The EPA acknowledges this difference within subpart GG, but in the final rule is changing the name used in Table 1 to subpart GG to match the category definition in Appendix A to subpart GG because that definition specifically uses the word “system,” instead of “compound,” in the body of the definition.
One commenter noted that the EPA should state in 40 CFR 63.752(a) that facilities are not required to keep records in accordance with 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5), to be consistent with the removal of SSM requirements in 40 CFR 63.753(a) and Table 1 to subpart GG. The EPA agrees and has added 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) to the list of paragraphs in 40 CFR 63.10 that do not apply.
One commenter noted that the term “affected unit” should be changed to “affected source” in 40 CFR 63.752(a)(1) to (3) for consistency with other sections of the rule. The EPA agrees and has made this change.
One commenter requested that the EPA clarify in the final rule if 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(vii) to (xiv) are applicable to the Aerospace NESHAP. The EPA acknowledges that in the version of Table 1 to subpart GG published in the
In the final rule, the EPA is also correcting 40 CFR 63.749(d)(3)(i) and (4)(i) to reference the applicable limits in 63.745(c). At 40 CFR 63.749(d)(3)(i) and (4)(i), the rule referenced only the single primer and topcoat limits that were promulgated in 1995 (60 FR 45948, September 1, 1995) and did not include the primer and topcoat limits that were added in 1998 (63 FR 46526, September 1, 1998) and 2000 (65 FR 76941, December 8, 2000). This change will resolve confusion over the applicable limits being referenced.
The EPA is also correcting several references to “spray cans” and replacing those references with “non-refillable aerosol containers” because that is the term used elsewhere in the rule. Similarly, the EPA is also correcting several references to “painting operations” and replacing them with “surface coating operations.”
The EPA estimates, based on the responses to the 2011 ICR, that there are 144 major source facilities that are engaged in aerospace manufacturing and rework surface coating operations. Based on the responses to the 2011 ICR, the EPA estimates that 109 facilities likely would be affected by the final limits for specialty coatings and the requirements to use high-efficiency application equipment for specialty coatings.
The EPA estimates that annual HAP emissions from specialty coatings are about 360 tpy; inorganic HAP emissions are about 5 tpy, and the remainder are organic HAP. The estimated emission reductions are 58 tons of HAP, which would be achieved from the regulation of specialty coatings. The EPA estimated that these emission reductions will result from the requirements to use high-efficiency application equipment and also from the application of the HAP content limits to specialty coatings.
The EPA estimates that the annual cost impacts will be about $590,000 per year for all affected facilities. The cost impacts are attributed to monitoring and recordkeeping costs for complying with the specialty coating HAP content limits. The cost per facility was estimated based on the number of specialty coatings used at each facility, as reported in the 2011 ICR. The costs are based on an assumption of 1 hour of technical labor for annual recordkeeping and reporting for each specialty coating used by a facility, plus additional management and clerical hours representing a fraction of the technical labor hours.
The EPA does not have sufficient data from the 2011 ICR to estimate the total cost impacts for specialty coatings having to comply with the proposed high-efficiency application equipment requirement. Because high-efficiency application equipment generates less coating overspray than conventional equipment, the costs of upgrading to new equipment can be offset by cost savings from reduced coating consumption and reduced spray booth filter maintenance. For these reasons, many facilities are likely to have already switched to high-efficiency application methods for specialty coating operations, as they are already required to for primer and topcoat application operations. For example, the average volume of specialty coatings used per facility is 3,000 gallons per year, based on the 2011 ICR data. The estimated purchase cost for a professional quality HVLP spray gun is $700 for the gun and hoses. If the average facility had to purchase three new spray guns, and the facility was spending an average of $30 per gallon of spray-applied coating, the facility would need to see a decrease in coating consumption of only 70 gallons per year (about a 3-percent reduction) to recover the initial cost of those three spray guns in 1 year.
The EPA expects some additional potential cost savings from the alternative compliance demonstration provision included in 40 CFR 63.750(c), (e), (k), and (m), but we do not have sufficient data to estimate the cost savings associated with the alternative compliance demonstration. However, for comparison, the estimated cost to perform an analysis of VOC content according to EPA Method 24, based on published vendor data, is about $575 per sample. The costs for an analysis of HAP content using EPA Method 311 are expected to be at least several times higher. Because the alternative compliance demonstration will allow facilities to use coating manufacturers' documentation of HAP or VOC content based on coating composition, the cost of these coating analyses using EPA Method 24 or 311 would be avoided.
The EPA's cost analyses are documented in the memorandum,
Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets are also examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with the rule and the distribution of these costs among affected facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in response to a rule.
This rule applies to the surface coating and related operations at facilities that are major sources and are engaged, either in part or in whole, in the manufacture or rework of commercial, civil or military aerospace vehicles or components. The final rule adds recordkeeping and reporting provisions for specialty coating operations but does not change the compliance costs for operations already being regulated by the existing emission standards. The annual costs were calculated for only the 109 aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities that reported having specialty coating operations.
The estimated annual costs for the final rule are less than $1 million in the first year and in succeeding years (less than $850,000 in the first year and less than $600,000 in succeeding years). These costs are estimated for the 109 facilities that, based on information reported by facilities, appear to have specialty coating operations. Thus, the average cost per facility is less than $10,000 per year. These costs are small compared to sales for the companies in aerospace manufacturing and reworking. For example, in 2012 the average annual value of shipments (a rough estimate of sales) for firms in the category of “other aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing” was almost $50 million (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census for NAICS 336413 for 2012). In this case, the cost-to-sales estimate will be approximately 0.02 percent of sales for each firm. Costs this small will not have significant market impacts, whether they are absorbed by the firm or passed on as price increases.
The EPA does not know of any firms that are small entities and using specialty coatings that are potentially subject to this final rule. Because no small firms face control costs, there is no significant impact on small entities. Therefore, these amendments will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We anticipate this rulemaking will reduce organic and inorganic HAP emissions by approximately 58 tons each year. These avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reduced negative health effects associated with exposure to air pollution of these emissions.
This rulemaking is not an “economically significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 because it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Therefore, we have not conducted a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this rulemaking or a benefits analysis. While we expect that these avoided emissions will improve air quality and reduce health effects associated with exposure to air pollution associated with these emissions, we have not quantified or monetized the benefits of reducing these emissions for this rulemaking.
The EPA is making environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low income populations in the United States. The EPA has established policies regarding the integration of environmental justice into the agency's rulemaking efforts, including recommendations for the consideration and conduct of analyses to evaluate potential environmental justice concerns during the development of a rule.
Following these recommendations, to gain a better understanding of the source category and near source populations, the EPA conducted a proximity analysis for aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities prior to proposal to identify any overrepresentation of minority, low income or indigenous populations. This analysis gives an indication of the prevalence of sub-populations that may be exposed to air pollution from the sources. Further details concerning this analysis are presented in the memorandum titled,
The results of the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities baseline risk assessment indicated that emissions from the source category expose approximately 180,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one was predicted to have a chronic non-cancer TOSHI greater than 1.
The baseline analysis indicated that the percentages of the population exposed to a cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million and living within 50 kilometers (km) of the 144 aerospace facilities is higher for minority populations, 36 percent exposed, versus the national minority population average of 28 percent. The specific demographics of the population within 50 km of the facilities indicate potential disparities in certain demographic groups, including the “African American” and “Below the Poverty Level” groups. However, the EPA's baseline analysis also showed that the estimated risks were within the ample margin of safety for all minority populations and low income populations. The EPA has also determined that the changes to this rule, which will reduce emissions of organic and inorganic HAP by 58 tpy, will lead to reduced risks to minority populations and low-income populations compared to the baseline analysis.
As part of the health and risk assessments, as well as the proximity analysis conducted for this action, risks to infants and children were assessed. These analyses are documented in the
The results of the proximity analysis show that children 17 years and younger as a percentage of the population in close proximity to aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities and with an estimated cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million is similar to the percentage of the national population in this age group (26 percent versus 24 percent, respectively). The difference in the absolute number of percentage points of the population 17 years old and younger from the national average indicates a 2 percent over-representation near aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities. Consistent with the EPA's
For each carcinogenic HAP included in this assessment that has a potency estimate available, individual and population cancer risks were calculated by multiplying the corresponding lifetime average exposure estimate by the appropriate unit risk estimate (URE). This calculated cancer risk is defined as the upper-bound probability of developing cancer over a 70-year period (
For the EPA's list of carcinogenic HAP that act by a mutagenic mode-of-action, we applied the EPA's
With regard to other carcinogenic pollutants for which early-life susceptibility data are lacking, it is the Agency's long-standing science policy position that use of the linear low-dose extrapolation approach (without further adjustment) provides adequate public health conservatism in the absence of chemical-specific data indicating differential early-life susceptibility or when the mode of action is not mutagenicity. The basis for this methodology is also provided in the 2005 Supplemental Guidance.
In the treatment of POM, the EPA expresses carcinogenic potency for compounds in this group in terms of benzo[a]pyrene equivalence, even though only a small fraction of the total POM emissions may be reported as individual compounds, based on evidence that carcinogenic POM have the same mutagenic mechanism of action as does benzo[a]pyrene. For this reason, the EPA implementation policy
Unlike linear dose-response assessments for cancer, non-cancer health hazards generally are not expressed as a probability of an adverse occurrence. Instead, hazard of non-cancer effects is expressed by comparing an exposure to a reference level as a ratio. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by a reference level (
For our multipathway screening assessment (
Based on the analyses described above, the EPA has determined that the changes to this rule, which will reduce emissions of organic and inorganic HAP by 58 tpy, will lead to reduced risk to children and infants.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
The information collection activities in this rule have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1687.10. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
The information requirements in this rulemaking are based on the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to national emission standards. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
Respondents are owners or operators of aerospace manufacturing and rework operations. The rule adds recordkeeping and reporting provisions for specialty coating operations, but does not change the recordkeeping and reporting provisions for any other types of operations. Therefore, of the 144 aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities subject to the Aerospace NESHAP, the annual costs for increased
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. When OMB approves this ICR, the agency will announce that approval in the
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This action will not impose any costs on small entities. Although there are small entities subject to this final rule they are either not using specialty coatings or the specialty coatings they're using are already compliant with the limits in the rule. Therefore, no facilities meeting the Small Business Administration's definition of a small business will incur costs. The results of the economic impact analysis are summarized in section V.D of this preamble and can be found in the memorandum,
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in the UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
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 does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in the aerospace manufacturing or rework surface coating operations that would be affected by this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in the document,
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
The final rule involves technical standards. The EPA is adding EPA Method 311 in the final rule to measure the organic HAP content of coatings subject to the rule. Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted a search to identify voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in addition to EPA Method 311. Two VCS were identified that were potentially applicable for EPA Method 311. These were American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D6438 (1999)—Standard Test Method for Acetone, Methyl Acetate, and Parachlorobenzotrifluoride Content of Paints and Coatings by Solid Phase Microextraction-Gas Chromotography, and California Air Resources Board (CARB) Method 310—Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products. The EPA decided not to use either of these VCS because both methods are impractical as alternatives to EPA Method 311 because they target chemicals that are VOC and are not HAP. The search and review results have been documented and are placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
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 on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations. A summary of the results of this evaluation are contained in section IV.A of this preamble and
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(c)
(4) For organic HAP or VOC emissions, each specialty coating application operation, which is the total of all specialty coating applications at the facility.
(8) For inorganic HAP emissions, each spray booth, portable enclosure, or hangar that contains a primer, topcoat, or specialty coating application operation subject to § 63.745(g), or a depainting operation subject to § 63.746(b)(4).
(f) This subpart does not regulate research and development, quality control, and laboratory testing activities, chemical milling, metal finishing, electrodeposition (except for electrodeposition of paints), composites processing (except for cleaning and coating of composite parts or components that become part of an aerospace vehicle or component as well as composite tooling that comes in contact with such composite parts or components prior to cure), electronic parts and assemblies (except for cleaning and topcoating of completed assemblies), manufacture of aircraft transparencies, and wastewater operations at aerospace facilities. These requirements do not apply to the rework of aircraft or aircraft components if the holder of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) design approval, or the holder's licensee, is not actively manufacturing the aircraft or aircraft components. These requirements also do not apply to parts and assemblies not critical to the vehicle's structural integrity or flight performance. The requirements of this subpart do not apply to primers, topcoats, specialty coatings, chemical milling maskants, strippers, and cleaning solvents that meet the definition of non-HAP material, as determined from manufacturer's representations, such as in a material safety data sheet or product data sheet, or testing, except that if an owner or operator chooses to include one or more non-HAP primer, topcoat, specialty coating, or chemical milling maskant in averaging under § 63.743(d), then the recordkeeping requirements of § 63.752(c)(4) shall apply. The requirements of this subpart also do not apply to primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings that meet the definition of “classified national security information” in § 63.742. Additional specific exemptions from regulatory coverage are set forth in paragraphs (e), (g), (h), (i) and (j) of this section and §§ 63.742, 63.744(a)(1), (b), (e), 63.745(a), (f)(3), (g)(4), 63.746(a), (b)(5), 63.747(c)(3), and 63.749(d).
(g) The requirements for primers, topcoats, specialty coatings, and chemical milling maskants in §§ 63.745 and 63.747 do not apply to the use of low-volume coatings in these categories for which the annual total of each separate formulation used at a facility does not exceed 189 l (50 gal), and the combined annual total of all such primers, topcoats, specialty coatings, and chemical milling maskants used at a facility does not exceed 757 l (200 gal). Primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings exempted under paragraph (f) of this section and under § 63.745(f)(3) and (g)(4) are not included in the 50 and 200 gal limits. Chemical milling maskants exempted under § 63.747(c)(3) are also not included in these limits.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(1) Coatings applied from a hand-held device with a paint cup capacity that is equal to or less than 3.0 fluid ounces (89 cubic centimeters) in which no more than 3.0 fluid ounces of coating is applied in a single application (
(2) Application of coating using powder coating, hand-held non-refillable aerosol containers, or non-atomizing application technology, including but not limited to paint brushes, rollers, flow coating, dip coating, electrodeposition coating, web coating, coil coating, touch-up markers, marking pens, trowels, spatulas, daubers, rags, sponges, mechanically and/or pneumatic-driven syringes, and inkjet machines.
(3) Application of adhesives, sealants, maskants, caulking materials, and inks.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) § 63.5, Preconstruction review and notification requirements; and
(8) For the purposes of this subpart, each owner or operator is to be provided 30 calendar days to present additional information to the Administrator after he/she is notified of the intended denial of a compliance extension request submitted under either § 63.6(i)(4) or § 63.6(i)(5), rather than 15 calendar days as provided for in § 63.6(i)(12)(iii)(B) and § 63.6(i)(13)(iii)(B).
(10) For the purposes of compliance with the requirements of § 63.5(b)(4) of the General Provisions and this subpart, owners or operators of existing primer, topcoat, or specialty coating application operations and depainting operations who construct or reconstruct a spray booth or hangar that does not have the potential to emit 10 tons/yr or more of an individual inorganic HAP or 25 tons/yr or more of all inorganic HAP combined shall only be required to notify the Administrator of such construction or reconstruction on an annual basis. Notification shall be submitted on or before March 1 of each year and shall include the information required in §63.5(b)(4) for each such spray booth or hangar constructed or reconstructed during the prior calendar year, except that such information shall be limited to inorganic HAP. No advance notification or written approval from the Administrator pursuant to §63.5(b)(3) shall be required for the construction or reconstruction of such a spray booth or hangar unless the booth or hangar has the potential to emit 10 tons/yr or more of an individual inorganic HAP or 25 tons/yr or more of all inorganic HAP combined.
(d) * * *
(1) Each owner or operator of a new or existing source shall use any
(2) Averaging is allowed only for uncontrolled primers, topcoats (including self-priming topcoats), specialty coatings, Type I chemical milling maskants, or Type II chemical milling maskants.
(3) Averaging is not allowed between specialty coating types defined in Appendix A to this subpart, or between the different types of coatings specified in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (vii) of this section.
(i) Primers and topcoats (including self-priming topcoats).
(ii) Type I and Type II chemical milling maskants.
(iii) Primers and chemical milling maskants.
(iv) Topcoats and chemical milling maskants.
(v) Primers and specialty coatings.
(vi) Topcoats and specialty coatings.
(vii) Chemical milling maskants and specialty coatings.
(e) At all times, the owner or operator must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
(a)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) Each owner or operator of a new or existing primer, topcoat, or specialty coating application operation subject to this subpart shall comply with the requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this section for those coatings that are uncontrolled (no control device is used to reduce organic HAP emissions from the operation), and in paragraph (d) of this section for those coatings that are controlled (organic HAP emissions from the operation are reduced by the use of a control device). Aerospace equipment that is no longer operational, intended for public display, and not easily capable of being moved is exempt from the requirements of this section.
(b) Each owner or operator shall conduct the handling and transfer of primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings to or from containers, tanks, vats, vessels, and piping systems in such a manner that minimizes spills.
(c)
(5) Organic HAP emissions from specialty coatings shall be limited to an organic HAP content level of no more than the HAP content limit specified in Table 1 of this section for each applicable specialty coating type.
(6) VOC emissions from specialty coatings shall be limited to a VOC content level of no more than the VOC content limit specified in Table 1 of this section for each applicable specialty coating type.
(e)
(1) Use primers, topcoats (including self-priming topcoats), and specialty coatings with HAP and VOC content levels equal to or less than the limits specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section; or
(f)
(1) All spray applied primers, topcoats (including self-priming topcoats), and specialty coatings shall be applied using one or more of the spray application techniques specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(v) of this section.
(i) High volume low pressure (HVLP) spraying;
(ii) Electrostatic spray application;
(iii) Airless spray application;
(iv) Air-assisted airless spray application; or
(v) Any other coating spray application methods that achieve emission reductions or a transfer efficiency equivalent to or better than HVLP spray, electrostatic spray, airless spray, or air-assisted airless spray application methods as determined
(2) All coating spray application devices used to apply primers, topcoats (including self-priming topcoats), or specialty coatings shall be operated according to company procedures, local specified operating procedures, and/or the manufacturer's specifications, whichever is most stringent, at all times. Spray application equipment modified by the facility shall maintain a transfer efficiency equivalent to HVLP spray, electrostatic spray, airless spray, or air-assisted airless spray application techniques.
(3) * * *
(i) Any situation that normally requires an extension on the spray gun to properly reach limited access spaces;
(ii) The application of coatings that contain fillers that adversely affect atomization with HVLP spray guns;
(iv) The use of airbrush application methods for stenciling, lettering, and other identification markings, and the spray application of no more than 3.0 fluid ounces of coating in a single application (
(v) The use of hand-held non-refillable aerosol containers;
(vi) Touch-up and repair operations;
(vii) Adhesives, sealants, maskants, caulking materials, and inks; and
(viii) The application of coatings that contain less than 20 grams of VOC per liter of coating.
(g)
(1) Apply these coatings in a booth, hangar, or portable enclosure in which air flow is directed downward onto or across the part or assembly being coated and exhausted through one or more outlets.
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Before exhausting it to the atmosphere, pass the air stream through a dry particulate filter system certified using the methods described in §63.750(o) to meet or exceed the efficiency data points in Tables 2 and 3 of this section; or
(C) Before exhausting it to the atmosphere, pass the air stream through an air pollution control system that meets or exceeds the efficiency data points in Tables 2 and 3 of this section and is approved by the permitting authority.
(ii) * * *
(A) Before exhausting it to the atmosphere, pass the air stream through a dry particulate filter system certified using the methods described in §63.750(o) to meet or exceed the efficiency data points in Tables 4 and 5 of this section; or
(B) Before exhausting it to the atmosphere, pass the air stream through an air pollution control system that meets or exceeds the efficiency data points in Tables 4 and 5 of this section and is approved by the permitting authority.
(iii) * * *
(B) If the primer, topcoat, or specialty coating contains chromium or cadmium, control shall consist of a HEPA filter system, three-stage filter system, or other control system equivalent to the three-stage filter system as approved by the permitting agency.
(iv) * * *
(C) Continuously monitor the pressure drop across the filter and read and record the pressure drop once per shift, or install an interlock system that will automatically shut down the coating spray application system if the pressure drop exceeds or falls below the filter manufacturer's recommended limit(s); and
(v) If a conventional waterwash system is used, continuously monitor the water flow rate and read and record the water flow rate once per shift, or install an interlock system that will automatically shut down the coating spray application system if the water flow rate falls below or exceeds the limit(s) specified by the booth manufacturer or in locally prepared operating procedures. If a pumpless system is used, continuously monitor the booth parameter(s) that indicate performance of the booth per the manufacturer's recommendations to maintain the booth within the acceptable operating efficiency range and read and record the parameters once per shift, or install an interlock system that will automatically shut down the coating spray application system if the booth parameters are outside the parameter range in the manufacturer's recommendations.
(4) * * *
(ix) Spray application of primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings in an area identified in a title V permit, where the permitting authority has determined
(x) The use of hand-held non-refillable aerosol containers; and
(xi) The spray application of no more than 3.0 fluid ounces of coating in a single application (
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii)(A) For existing sources, pass any air stream removed from the enclosed area or closed-cycle depainting system through a dry particulate filter system, certified using the method described in § 63.750(o) to meet or exceed the efficiency data points in Tables 2 and 3 of § 63.745, through a baghouse, or through a waterwash system before exhausting it to the atmosphere.
(B) For new sources, pass any air stream removed from the enclosed area or closed-cycle depainting system through a dry particulate filter system certified using the method described in § 63.750(o) to meet or exceed the efficiency data points in Tables 4 and 5 of § 63.745 or through a baghouse before exhausting it to the atmosphere.
(a) The owner or operator of each facility subject to this subpart that produces a waste that contains organic HAP from aerospace primer, topcoat, specialty coating, chemical milling maskant, or chemical depainting operations must be handled and stored as specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section. The requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section do not apply to spent wastes that contain organic HAP that are subject to and handled and stored in compliance with 40 CFR parts 262 through 268 (including the air emission control requirements in 40 CFR part 265, subpart CC).
(1) Conduct the handling and transfer of the waste to or from containers, tanks, vats, vessels, and piping systems in such a manner that minimizes spills.
(2) Store all waste that contains organic HAP in closed containers.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(2) Owners or operators of existing primer, topcoat, or specialty coating application operations and depainting operations who construct or reconstruct a spray booth or hangar must comply with the new source requirements for inorganic HAP specified in §§ 63.745(g)(2)(ii) and 63.746(b)(4) for that new spray booth or hangar upon startup. Such sources must still comply with all other existing source requirements by September 1, 1998.
(3) Each owner or operator of a specialty coating application operation that begins construction or reconstruction after February 17, 2015 shall be in compliance with the requirements of this subpart on December 7, 2015 or upon startup, whichever is later. Each owner or operator of a specialty coating application operation that is existing on February 17, 2015 shall be in compliance with the requirements of this subpart on or before December 7, 2018.
(b)
(d)
(3) The primer application operation is considered in compliance when the conditions specified in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (d)(3)(iv) of this section, as applicable, and in paragraph (e) of this section are met. Failure to meet any one of the conditions identified in these paragraphs shall constitute noncompliance. The compliance demonstration for a primer may be based on the organic HAP content or the VOC content of the primer; demonstrating compliance with both the HAP content limit and the VOC content limit is not required. If a primer contains HAP solvents that are exempt from the definition of VOC in § 63.741 and 40 CFR 51.100, then the HAP content must be used to demonstrate compliance.
(i) For all uncontrolled primers, all values of H
(4) The topcoat or specialty coating application operation is considered in compliance when the conditions specified in paragraphs (d)(4)(i) through (d)(4)(iv) of this section, as applicable, and in paragraph (e) of this section are met. Failure to meet any of the conditions identified in these paragraphs shall constitute noncompliance.
(i) The topcoat application operation is considered in compliance when the conditions specified in paragraph (d)(4)(i)(A) of this section are met. The specialty coating application operation is considered in compliance when the conditions specified in paragraph (d)(4)(i)(B) are met. The compliance demonstration for a topcoat or a specialty coating may be based on the organic HAP content or the VOC content of the coating; demonstrating
(A) For all uncontrolled topcoats, all values of H
(B) For all uncontrolled specialty coatings, all values of H
(iii)(A) Uses an application technique specified in § 63.745(f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(iv); or
(B) Uses an alternative application technique, as allowed under § 63.745(f)(1)(v), such that the emissions of both organic HAP and VOC for the implementation period of the alternative application method are less than or equal to the emissions generated using HVLP spray, electrostatic spray, airless spray, or air-assisted airless spray application methods, as determined using the procedures specified in § 63.750(i).
(e)
(h) * * *
(3) The chemical milling maskant application operation is considered in compliance when the conditions specified in paragraphs (i)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section are met. The compliance demonstration for a chemical milling maskant may be based on the organic HAP content or the VOC content of the chemical milling maskant; demonstrating compliance with both the HAP content limit and the VOC content limit is not required. If a chemical milling maskant contains HAP solvents that are exempt from the definition of VOC in § 63.741 and 40 CFR 51.100, then the HAP content must be used to demonstrate compliance.
(j) Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on representative performance of the affected source for the period being tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown unless specified by the Administrator or an applicable subpart. The owner or operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. The owner or operator must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
(c)
(2) For each coating formulation as applied, determine the organic HAP weight fraction, water weight fraction (if applicable), and density from manufacturer's data. If the value for organic HAP weight fraction cannot be determined using the manufacturer's data, the owner or operator shall use Method 311 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or submit an alternative procedure for determining the value for approval by the Administrator. If the values for water weight fraction (if applicable) and density cannot be determined using the manufacturer's data, the owner or operator shall submit an alternative procedure for determining their values for approval by the Administrator. Recalculation is required only when a change occurs in the coating formulation. If there is a discrepancy between the manufacturer's formulation data and the results of the Method 311 analysis, compliance shall be based on the results from the Method 311 analysis.
(d)
(1) * * *
(iii) Manufacturer's formulation data may be used to determine the total organic HAP content of each coating and any ingredients added to the coating prior to its application. If the total organic HAP content cannot be determined using the manufacturer's data, the owner or operator shall use Method 311 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A for determining the total organic HAP weight fraction, or shall submit an alternative procedure for determining the total organic HAP weight fraction for approval by the Administrator. If there is a discrepancy between the manufacturer's formulation data and the results of the Method 311 analysis,
(e)
(f)
(1) * * *
(iii) Determine the VOC content of each primer, topcoat, and specialty coating formulation (less water and exempt solvents) as applied using EPA Method 24 or from manufacturer's data.
(i)(1)
(ii) For specialty coatings, an owner or operator may use any other coating application method capable of achieving emission reductions or a transfer efficiency equivalent to or better than that provided by HVLP, electrostatic spray, air-assisted airless, or airless application. Any owner or operator using an application method pursuant to this paragraph (i)(2)(ii) shall maintain records demonstrating the transfer efficiency achieved.
(2)(i) For the process or processes for which the alternative application method is to be used, the total organic HAP and VOC emissions shall be determined for an initial 30-day period, the period of time required to apply coating to five completely assembled aircraft, or a time period approved by the permitting agency. During this initial period, only HVLP, electrostatic spray application methods, air-assisted airless application methods, or airless application methods shall be used. The emissions shall be determined based on the volumes, organic HAP contents (less water), and VOC contents (less water and exempt solvents) of the coatings as applied.
(iii) Test the proposed application method against either HVLP, electrostatic spray application methods, air-assisted airless application methods, or airless application methods in a laboratory or pilot production area, using parts and coatings representative of the process(es) where the alternative method is to be used. The laboratory test will use the same part configuration(s) and the same number of parts for both the proposed method and the HVLP, electrostatic spray application methods, air-assisted airless application methods, or airless application methods.
(3) Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate that an alternative application method achieves emission reductions equivalent to HVLP, electrostatic spray application methods, air-assisted airless application methods, or airless application methods shall comply with the following:
(k)
(m)
(o)
(c)
(2) Each owner or operator using a conventional waterwash system to meet the requirements of § 63.745(g)(2) shall, while primer or topcoat application operations are occurring, continuously monitor the water flow rate through the system and read and record the water flow rate once per shift following the recordkeeping requirements of § 63.752(d), or install an interlock system as specified in § 63.745(g)(2)(v). Each owner or operator using a pumpless waterwash system to meet the requirements of § 63.745(g)(2) shall, while primer, topcoat, and specialty coating application operations are occurring, measure and record the parameter(s) recommended by the booth manufacturer that indicate booth performance once per shift, following the recordkeeping requirements of § 63.752(d), or install an interlock system as specified in § 63.745(g)(2)(v).
(a)
(1) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable standard, record the number of failures. For each failure record the date, time, and duration of each failure.
(2) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(3) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.743(e), and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(c)
(1) The name and VOC content as received and as applied of each primer, topcoat, and specialty coating used at the facility.
(2) For uncontrolled primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings that meet the organic HAP and VOC content limits in § 63.745(c)(1) through (c)(6) without averaging:
(4) For primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings complying with the organic HAP or VOC content level by averaging:
(5) For primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings that are controlled by a control device other than a carbon adsorber:
(6) For primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings that are controlled by a carbon adsorber:
(d)
(f)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(2) through (5) of this section, each owner or operator subject to this subpart shall fulfill the requirements contained in § 63.9(a) through (e) and (h) through (j), Notification requirements, and § 63.10(a), (b), (d), and (f), Recordkeeping and reporting requirements, of the General Provisions, 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and that the initial notification for existing sources required in § 63.9(b)(2) shall be submitted not later than September 1, 1997, or as specified in § 63.9(b)(2). In addition to the requirements of § 63.9(h), the notification of compliance status shall include:
(2) The initial notification for existing sources, required in § 63.9(b)(2) shall be submitted no later than September 1, 1997, or as specified in § 63.9(b)(2). For the purposes of this subpart, a title V or part 70 permit application may be used in lieu of the initial notification required under § 63.9(b)(2), provided the same information is contained in the permit application as required by § 63.9(b)(2), and the State to which the permit application has been submitted has an approved operating permit program under part 70 of this chapter and has received delegation of authority from the EPA. Permit applications shall
(4) Each owner or operator subject to this subpart is not required to comply with § 63.10(b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(iv), (b)(2)(v), and (d)(5).
(5) If a source fails to meet an applicable standard specified in §§ 63.744 through 63.748, report such events in the semiannual report:
(i) The number of failures to meet an applicable standard.
(ii) For each instance, report the date, time, and duration of each failure.
(iii) For each failure the report must include a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(c)
(1) * * *
(i) For primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings where compliance is not being achieved through the use of averaging or a control device, the HAP or VOC content in manufacturer's supplied data as recorded under § 63.752(c), or each value of H
(ii) For primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings where compliance is being achieved through the use of averaging, each value of H
(e) * * *
(1) For chemical milling maskants where compliance is not being achieved through the use of averaging or a control device, the HAP or VOC content in manufacturer's supplied data as recorded under § 63.752(f), or each value of H
(f) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test (as defined in § 63.2) required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance tests following the procedure specified in either paragraph (f)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site (
(2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site at the time of the test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13.
| 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 |