Page Range | 76855-77229 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
80 FR 77032 - Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors; Sunshine Act Meeting | |
80 FR 76948 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
80 FR 76988 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
80 FR 77010 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Montezuma Castle National Monument, Camp Verde, AZ; Correction | |
80 FR 77007 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Hudson Museum, University of Maine, Orono, ME | |
80 FR 77124 - Final Fair Market Rents for the Housing Choice Voucher Program and Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Program and Other Programs Fiscal Year 2016 | |
80 FR 77008 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Northwest Museum, Whitman College, Walla Walla, WA; Correction | |
80 FR 77004 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC | |
80 FR 77001 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Page, AZ | |
80 FR 76980 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
80 FR 77003 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate a Cultural Item: Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, Los Angeles, CA | |
80 FR 77005 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA | |
80 FR 77011 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: New York State Museum, Albany, NY | |
80 FR 77009 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL | |
80 FR 76994 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
80 FR 76999 - Statement of Findings: Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act of 2014 | |
80 FR 77029 - National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations Meeting | |
80 FR 76926 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
80 FR 76860 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Des Allemands Bayou, Des Allemands, LA | |
80 FR 76985 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
80 FR 76983 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
80 FR 76984 - Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
80 FR 76986 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
80 FR 76982 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
80 FR 76981 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
80 FR 76957 - Application for New Awards; National Professional Development Program | |
80 FR 77012 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Royalty and Production Reporting--OMB Control Number 1012-0004; Comment Request | |
80 FR 76988 - Notice To All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10494 Syringa Bank, Boise, Idaho | |
80 FR 76987 - Notice of Termination; 10479 Central Arizona Bank; Scottsdale, Arizona | |
80 FR 76987 - Notice of Termination; 10420 BankEast; Knoxville, Tennessee | |
80 FR 76987 - Notice of Termination, 10357 Rosemount National Bank, Rosemount, Minnesota | |
80 FR 76987 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10169 St. Stephen State Bank, St. Stephen, Minnesota | |
80 FR 77065 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Exchange Rules To Prescribe the Securities Traders Examination as the Qualifying Examination for Persons Associated With a Member Organization Engaged Solely in Proprietary Trading, and Amend Continuing Education Requirement Applicable to Such Members | |
80 FR 77057 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend Nasdaq Rule 7018 | |
80 FR 77038 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating to Price Protection Mechanisms | |
80 FR 77047 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating to Price Protection Mechanisms | |
80 FR 77035 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Exchange Rules To Prescribe the Securities Traders Examination as the Qualifying Examination for Persons Associated With a Member Organization Engaged Solely in Proprietary Trading, and Amend Continuing Education Requirement Applicable to Such Members | |
80 FR 77058 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Exchange Rules To Establish the Securities Trader and Securities Trader Principal Registration Categories | |
80 FR 77068 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Exchange Rules To Prescribe the Securities Traders Examination as the Qualifying Examination for Employees of ETP Holders Engaged Solely in Proprietary Trading, and Amend Continuing Education Requirement Applicable to Such Members | |
80 FR 77063 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca Rule 2.23 To Establish the Securities Trader and Securities Trader Principal Registration Categories | |
80 FR 77072 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Delete Rule 22.10, Limitation on Dealings, Related to the EDGX Options Market | |
80 FR 76951 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification | |
80 FR 76988 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
80 FR 76988 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; Correction | |
80 FR 77075 - Notice of Public Meeting | |
80 FR 76860 - Special Local Regulation; Southern California Annual Marine Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone | |
80 FR 77079 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
80 FR 76923 - Petition for Reconsideration of Action in a Rulemaking Proceeding | |
80 FR 76954 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification | |
80 FR 76946 - Procurement List; Deletions | |
80 FR 76948 - Procurement List, Proposed Additions | |
80 FR 77019 - Certain Aquarium Fittings and Parts Thereof Notice of Institution of Investigation | |
80 FR 76948 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request | |
80 FR 76967 - Proposed Agency Information Collection | |
80 FR 77082 - Reading Blue Mountain & Northern Railroad Company-Trackage Rights Exemption-Norfolk Southern Railway Company | |
80 FR 76966 - Proposed Agency Information Collection | |
80 FR 76868 - 2015 Edition Health Information Technology (Health IT) Certification Criteria, 2015 Edition Base Electronic Health Record (EHR) Definition, and ONC Health IT Certification Program Modifications; Corrections and Clarifications | |
80 FR 77028 - Assessment of Radioactive Discharges in Ground Water to the Unrestricted Area at Nuclear Power Plant Sites | |
80 FR 77020 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection, eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Previously Approved Collection, Application for Registration, Application for Registration Renewal; DEA Forms 224, 224A | |
80 FR 77022 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection; Comments Requested: Generic Clearance for Cognitive, Pilot and Field Studies for Bureau of Justice Statistics Data Collection Activities | |
80 FR 77022 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Manufacturers of Ammunition, Records and Supporting Data of Ammunition Manufactured and Disposed of | |
80 FR 77021 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; ATF Distribution Center Survey | |
80 FR 76932 - Notice of Intent To Request To Conduct a New Information Collection | |
80 FR 76949 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification | |
80 FR 77020 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Federal Firearms License (FFL) RENEWAL Application | |
80 FR 76931 - Notice of Intent To Request Revision and Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
80 FR 77000 - Notice of Public Meeting; Central Montana Resource Advisory Council | |
80 FR 76996 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
80 FR 76995 - Office of the Director; Notice of Charter Renewal | |
80 FR 76995 - Office of the Director, Office of Science Policy, Office of Biotechnology Activities; Notice of Meeting | |
80 FR 76924 - Fisheries Off West Coast States; Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Amendment 1; Amendments to the Fishery Management Plans for Coastal Pelagic Species, Pacific Coast Groundfish, U.S. West Coast Highly Migratory Species, and Pacific Coast Salmon | |
80 FR 77083 - Agency Information Collection (Foreign Medical Program Application and Claim Cover Sheet) | |
80 FR 77001 - Notice of Correction to Filing of Plats, Colorado | |
80 FR 76859 - Listing of Color Additives Exempt From Certification; Mica-Based Pearlescent Pigments; Confirmation of Effective Date | |
80 FR 76998 - San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex, CO; Availability of Record of Decision for the Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement | |
80 FR 77016 - Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Statement, Upper Truckee River and Marsh Restoration Project, El Dorado County, California | |
80 FR 77082 - Proposed Information Collection (Student Verification of Enrollment) Activity: Comment Request | |
80 FR 76881 - Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP) | |
80 FR 76992 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
80 FR 77080 - Limitation on Claims Against a Proposed Public Transportation Project | |
80 FR 77084 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review-Student Verification of Enrollment | |
80 FR 77085 - Commission on Care | |
80 FR 77023 - Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety Standards | |
80 FR 77026 - Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety Standards | |
80 FR 76878 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
80 FR 76934 - Views on the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity | |
80 FR 76855 - Open Access and Priority Rights on Interconnection Customer's Interconnection Facilities | |
80 FR 76967 - San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services Into Markets Operated by the California Independent System Operator Corporation and the California Power Exchanges; Notice of Compliance Filing | |
80 FR 76970 - NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC; Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; DTE Gas Company; Notice of Applications | |
80 FR 76969 - Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C; Notice of Application | |
80 FR 76968 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
80 FR 76971 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
80 FR 76875 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
80 FR 76936 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Murray Street Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project by the California State Department of Transportation | |
80 FR 76861 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Maryland's Negative Declaration for the Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings Control Techniques Guidelines | |
80 FR 76927 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) Family Day Care Home Meal Claim Feasibility Study | |
80 FR 76933 - Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness: Notice of Public Meetings | |
80 FR 76889 - Carrying of Firearms and Use of Force for Law Enforcement, Security, Counterintelligence, and Protective Services | |
80 FR 77076 - Determination of Trade Surplus in Certain Sugar and Syrup Goods and Sugar-Containing Products of Chile, Morocco, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Peru, Colombia, and Panama | |
80 FR 76957 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Student Assistance General Provisions-Readmission for Servicemembers | |
80 FR 76971 - California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Small Off-Road Engines Regulations; Tier 4 Off-Road Compression-Ignition Regulations; Exhaust Emission Certification Test Fuel for Off-Road Spark-Ignition Engines, Equipment, and Vehicles Regulations; Notice of Decision | |
80 FR 77030 - New Postal Product | |
80 FR 76979 - Request for Nominations to the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) | |
80 FR 76931 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
80 FR 76894 - Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities; Commonwealth of Puerto Rico | |
80 FR 77031 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
80 FR 77037 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule | |
80 FR 77070 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule | |
80 FR 77061 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 6.54 | |
80 FR 77032 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Gross Margining for Certain Categories of Customer Accounts | |
80 FR 76981 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
80 FR 76855 - Review and Approval of Projects | |
80 FR 77032 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
80 FR 77031 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
80 FR 76980 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Final Collection; Comment Request; Form Title: EIB 09-01 Payment Default Report OMB 3048-0028 | |
80 FR 77088 - Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Frameworks for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations | |
80 FR 77081 - Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance | |
80 FR 77029 - New Postal Product | |
80 FR 76936 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Permit and Reporting Requirements for Non-Commercial Fishing in the Rose Atoll, Marianas Trench, and Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monuments | |
80 FR 76996 - Office of The Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of Meeting | |
80 FR 77083 - Proposed Information Collection (Learner's Perceptions Survey (LPS)); Activity: Comment Request | |
80 FR 76990 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
80 FR 76989 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
80 FR 76873 - Cotton Board Rules and Regulations: Amending Importer Line-Item De Minimis | |
80 FR 76863 - Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Transportation Conformity Procedures | |
80 FR 76893 - Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Transportation Conformity Procedures | |
80 FR 77018 - North Cumberland Wildlife Management Area, Tennessee Lands Unsuitable for Mining Draft Petition Evaluation Document and Environmental Impact Statement OSM-EIS-37 | |
80 FR 77200 - Management of Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights | |
80 FR 76865 - Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; SC; Redesignation of the Charlotte-Rock Hill, 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment | |
80 FR 76997 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless | |
80 FR 76897 - Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4) for Public Water Systems and Announcement of a Public Meeting |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Food and Nutrition Service
National Agricultural Statistics Service
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Office of Natural Resources Revenue
Reclamation Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
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 Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Correcting amendment.
This document contains corrections to the final regulations that became effective June 30, 2015, as published in the 2015 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Brian R. Gish (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: 202-502-8998, Email:
The Commission amended 18 CFR 35.28(d), addressing waivers of the Open Access Transmission Tariff requirements for public utilities that own, operate, or control Interconnection Customer's Interconnection Facilities.
As published in the 2015 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, the final regulations effective June 30, 2015, contained an error; they incorrectly removed certain language from 18 CFR 35.28(d) that should have been retained. The Commission did not intend to remove this language. This correcting amendment reinserts the incorrectly-removed language.
Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 18 CFR part 35 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:
16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
(d)
(2) The requirements of this section, 18 CFR parts 37 (Open Access Same-Time Information System) and 358 (Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers) are waived for any public utility that is or becomes subject to such requirements solely because it owns, controls, or operates Interconnection Customer's Interconnection Facilities, in whole or in part, as that term is defined in the standard generator interconnection procedures and agreements referenced in paragraph (f) of this section, or comparable jurisdictional interconnection facilities that are the subject of interconnection agreements other than the standard generator interconnection procedures and agreements referenced in paragraph (f) of this section, if the entity that owns, operates, or controls such facilities either sells electric energy, or files a statement with the Commission that it commits to comply with and be bound by the obligations and procedures applicable to electric utilities under section 210 of the Federal Power Act.
(i) The waivers referenced in this paragraph (d)(2) shall be deemed to be revoked as of the date the public utility ceases to satisfy the qualifications of this paragraph (d)(2), and may be revoked by the Commission if the Commission determines that it is in the public interest to do so. After revocation of its waivers, the public utility must comply with the requirements that had been waived within 60 days of revocation.
(ii) Any eligible entity that seeks interconnection or transmission services with respect to the interconnection facilities for which a waiver is in effect pursuant to this paragraph (d)(2) may follow the procedures in sections 210, 211, and 212 of the Federal Power Act, 18 CFR 2.20, and 18 CFR part 36. In any proceeding pursuant to this paragraph (d)(2)(ii):
(A) The Commission will consider it to be in the public interest to grant priority rights to the owner and/or operator of interconnection facilities specified in this paragraph (d)(2) to use capacity thereon when such owner and/or operator can demonstrate that it has specific plans with milestones to use such capacity to interconnect its or its affiliate's future generation projects.
(B) For the first five years after the commercial operation date of the interconnection facilities specified in this paragraph (d)(2), the Commission will apply the rebuttable presumption that the owner and/or operator of such facilities has definitive plans to use the capacity thereon, and it is thus in the public interest to grant priority rights to the owner and/or operator of such facilities to use capacity thereon.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Final rule.
This document contains final rules that would amend the regulations of the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (Commission) to simplify and clarify the process for transferring approvals and to add sections dealing with general permits and modifications to approvals. These amendments are to be made effective upon publication of this rulemaking.
Effective December 11, 2015.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, Esq., General Counsel, telephone: 717-238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: 717-238-2436; email:
Notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the
As a part of the Resolution adopting this final rule, the Commission also has set a reduced fee for applications for minor modifications at $750. Future adjustments may be made to this application fee during the regular annual adjustments to the Commission fee schedule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Water resources.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission amends 18 CFR part 806 as follows:
Secs. 3.4, 3.5(5), 3.8, 3.10, and 15.2, Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
(a) * * *
(9) Any project subject to coverage under a general permit issued under § 806.17.
(c) Any project that did not require Commission approval prior to January 1, 2007, and not otherwise exempt from the requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(v), or (a)(3)(iv) of this section, pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, may be undertaken by a new project sponsor upon a change of ownership pending action on a transfer application under § 806.6.
(a) An existing Commission approval may be transferred to a new project sponsor by the Executive Director provided:
(1) The application for transfer is submitted within 90 days of a transfer or change in ownership of a project.
(2) The new project sponsor operates the project subject to the same terms and conditions of the existing approval pending approval of the transfer application.
(3) Any noncompliance by the existing project sponsor associated with the project or by the new project sponsor associated with other projects is resolved to the Commission's satisfaction.
(4) If the existing approval is greater than 10 years old, the transfer shall be conditioned to require the submission of an updated metering and monitoring plan consistent with the requirements of § 806.30.
(5) If the existing project has an unapproved withdrawal, consumptive use and/or diversion listed in paragraph
(6) Any modifications proposed by the new project sponsor shall be subject to a separate application and review process under §§ 806.14 and 806.18.
(b) Previously unapproved activities associated with a project subject to transfer under paragraph (a) of this section include:
(1) The project has an associated pre-compact consumptive water use that has not been subject to approval or had mitigation approved by the Commission.
(2) The project has an associated diversion that was initiated prior to January 23, 1971.
(3) The project has an associated groundwater withdrawal that was initiated prior to July 13, 1978, and that has not been approved by the Commission.
(4) The project has an associated surface water withdrawal that was initiated prior to November 11, 1995, and that has not been approved by the Commission.
(5) The project has a consumptive water use approval and has an associated withdrawal that has not been approved by the Commission.
(c) Upon undergoing a change of name that does not affect ownership or control of the project, the project sponsor must request a reissuance of the project's approval by the Executive Director within 90 days from the date of the change.
(a) Except with respect to applications to renew an existing Commission approval, applications for minor modifications, and Notices of Intent for approvals by rule and general permits, applications shall include, but not be limited to, the following information and, where applicable, shall be submitted on forms and in the manner prescribed by the Commission. Renewal applications shall include such information that the Commission determines to be necessary for the review of same, shall be subject to the standards set forth in subpart C of this part, and shall likewise be submitted on forms and in the manner prescribed by the Commission.
(d) Applications for minor modifications must be complete and will be on a form and in a manner prescribed by the Commission. Applications for minor modifications must contain the following:
(1) Description of the project;
(2) Description of all sources, consumptive uses and diversions related to the project;
(3) Description of the requested modification;
(4) Statement of the need for the requested modification;
(5) Demonstration that the anticipated impact of the requested modification will not adversely impact the water resources of the basin; and
(6) Any other information that the Commission or Executive Director deems necessary.
(a) Except with respect to paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section, any project sponsor submitting an application to the Commission shall provide notice thereof to the appropriate agency of the member State, each municipality in which the project is located, and the county planning agency of each county in which the project is located. The project sponsor shall also publish notice of submission of the application at least once in a newspaper of general circulation serving the area in which the project is located. The project sponsor shall also meet any of the notice requirements set forth in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section, if applicable. All notices required under this section shall be provided or published no later than 20 days after submission of the application to the Commission and shall contain a description of the project, its purpose, the requested quantity of water to be withdrawn, obtained from sources other than withdrawals, or consumptively used, and the address, electronic mail address, and phone number of the project sponsor and the Commission. All such notices shall be in a form and manner as prescribed by the Commission.
(h) For Notices of Intent (NOI) seeking coverage under a general permit, the project sponsor shall provide the NOI to the appropriate agency of the member State and each municipality and county planning agency in which the project is located and any additional notice identified in the general permit.
(i) For applications for minor modifications, the project sponsor shall provide notice of the application to the appropriate agency of the member State and each municipality and county planning agency in which the project is located.
(a)
(1) Involve the same or substantially similar types of operations or activities;
(2) Require the same limitations or operating conditions, or both;
(3) Require the same or similar monitoring and reporting; and
(4) Will result in minimal adverse impacts consistent with §§ 806.21 through 806.24.
(b)
(2) At least 30 days shall be provided for interested members of the public and Federal, State and local agencies to provide written comments on a proposed general permit.
(3) The Commission or Executive Director may, in its discretion, hold a public hearing on a proposed general permit, taking into account the level of public interest and likelihood of controversy.
(4) The issuance of a general permit adopted by the Commission will be published in the
(c)
(1) Any general permit issued under this section shall set forth the applicability of the permit and the conditions that apply to any diversion, withdrawal or consumptive use authorized by such general permit.
(2) The Commission may fix a term to any general permit issued.
(3) A project sponsor shall obtain permission to divert, withdraw or consumptively use water in accordance with a general permit by filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Commission, in a form and manner determined by the Commission.
(4) Approval of coverage under a general permit shall be determined by the Executive Director or by any other manner that the Commission shall establish for any general permit.
(5) The Commission may set a fee for NOIs to any general permit.
(6) A project sponsor shall provide notice for NOIs in accordance with § 806.15(h) and any additional notice requirements that the Commission may adopt for any general permit.
(7) The requirements of § 806.16 apply to the review of NOIs to any general permit.
(8) Upon reissuance or amendment of a general permit, all project sponsors permitted to divert, withdraw or consumptively use water in accordance with the previous general permit shall be permitted to continue to operate with the renewed or modified general permit unless otherwise notified by the Commission.
(9) Notice of receipt of NOIs shall be published on the Commission's Web site and in any other manner that the Commission shall establish for any general permit.
(d)
(1) The project or project sponsor does not or can no longer meet the criteria for coverage under a general permit.
(2) The diversion, withdrawal or consumptive use, individually or in combination with other similar Commission regulated activities, is causing or has the potential to cause adverse impacts to water resources or competing water users.
(3) The project does not comport with § 806.21(a) or (b).
(4) The project includes other diversions, withdrawals or consumptive uses that require an individual approval and the issuance of both an individual approval and a general permit for the project would constitute an undue administrative burden on the Commission.
(5) The Executive Director determines that a project cannot be effectively regulated under a general permit and is more effectively regulated under an individual approval.
(e)
(f)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Correction of typographical errors;
(2) Changes to monitoring or metering conditions;
(3) Addition of sources of water for consumptive use;
(4) Changes to the authorized water uses;
(5) Changes to conditions setting a schedule for developing, implementing, and/or reporting on monitoring, data collection and analyses;
(6) Changes to the design of intakes;
(7) Increases to total system limits that were established based on the projected demand of the project; and
(8) Modifications of extraction well network used for groundwater remediation systems.
(d)
(1) Increases in the quantity of water withdrawals, consumptive uses or diversions;
(2) Increases to peak day consumptive water use;
(3) Increases to the instantaneous withdrawal rate or changes from a single withdrawal rate to a varied withdrawal rate;
(4) Changes affecting passby flow requirements; and
(5) Changes that have the potential for adverse impacts to water resources or competing water users.
(e)
(2) The Commission or Executive Director may approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for minor modification, or direct that an application for major modification be made.
(3) The Commission may approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for major modification.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule; confirmation of effective date.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is confirming the effective date of November 2, 2015, for the final rule that appeared in the
Effective date of final rule published in the
Salome Bhagan, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835, 240-402-3041.
In the
We gave interested persons until October 30, 2015, to file objections or requests for a hearing. We received no objections or requests for a hearing on the final rule. Therefore, we find that the effective date of the final rule that published in the
Color additives, Cosmetics, Drugs, Foods, Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 342, 343, 348, 351, 352, 355, 361, 362, 371, 379e) and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and redelegated to the Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, we are giving notice that no objections or requests for a hearing were filed in response to the September 30, 2015, final rule. Accordingly, the amendments issued thereby became effective November 2, 2015.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the San Diego Parade of Lights special local regulations on Sunday, December 13, 2015 and Sunday, December 20, 2015. This event occurs in north San Diego Bay in San Diego, CA. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor safety vessels, and general users of the waterway. During the enforcement period, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.
The regulations for the marine event listed in 33 CFR 100.1101, Table 1, Item 5, will be enforced from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on Sunday, December 13, 2015 and Sunday, December 20, 2015.
If you have questions on this document, call or email Petty Officer Randolph Pahilanga, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone (619) 278-7656, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 in support of the San Diego Parade of Lights (Item 5 on Table 1 of 33 CFR 100.1101). The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations in the San Diego Bay in San Diego, CA from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on Sunday, December 13, 2015 and Sunday, December 20, 2015.
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1101, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in patrol and notification of this regulation.
This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 33 CFR 100.1101. In addition to this document in the
If the Captain of the Port Sector San Diego or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad swing span drawbridge across Des Allemands Bayou, mile 14.0, at Des Allemands, St. Charles and Lafourche Parishes, Louisiana. This deviation is necessary to perform two extensive rest pier rehabilitations to the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in its closed-to-navigation position for three eight-hour periods during three consecutive days on two separate occasions.
This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on January 13, 2016 through 3 p.m. on January 22, 2016.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0974] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Donna Gagliano, Bridge Specialist, Coast Guard; telephone 504-671-2128, email
The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad swing span drawbridge across Des Allemands Bayou, mile 14.0, at Des Allemands, St. Charles and Lafourche Parishes, Louisiana, has a vertical clearance of three feet above mean high water in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited in the open-to-navigation position.
The draw currently operates under 33 CFR 117.440(b). For purposes of this deviation, the bridge will not be required to open from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.
The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad requested a temporary deviation for the operation of the drawbridge to accommodate rehabilitation work involving rest pivot piers and swing span change out, an extensive but necessary maintenance operation. Navigation on the waterway consists of tugs with tows, fishing vessels and recreational crafts.
The Coast Guard has coordinated the closure with waterway users, industry, and other Coast Guard units and determined that this closure will not have a significant effect on vessel traffic.
During this deviation for bridge rehabilitation, vessels will not be allowed to pass through the bridge during the eight-hour closures each day as stated above. Many of the vessels that currently require an opening of the draw will be able to pass using the opposite channel from 3 p.m. to 7 a.m. when the deviations are not in effect. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland. This revision pertains to a negative declaration for the Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG). EPA is approving this revision in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This final rule is effective on January 11, 2016.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0530. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Irene Shandruk, (215) 814-2166, or by email at
Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides that SIPs for nonattainment areas must include reasonably available control measures (RACM), including reasonably available control technology (RACT), for sources of emissions. Section 182(b)(2)(A) provides that for certain ozone nonattainment areas, states must revise their SIP to include RACT for sources of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions covered by a CTG document issued after November 15, 1990 and prior to the area's date of attainment. EPA defines RACT as “the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.” 44 FR 53761 (September 17, 1979).
CTGs are documents issued by EPA intended to provide state and local air pollution control authorities information to assist them in determining RACT for VOCs from various sources. Section 183(e)(3)(c) provides that EPA may issue a CTG in lieu of a national regulation as RACT for a product category where EPA determines that the CTG will be substantially as effective as regulations in reducing emissions of VOCs, which contribute to ozone levels, in ozone nonattainment areas. The recommendations in the CTG are based upon available data and information and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances.
In 1977, EPA published a CTG for automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings. After reviewing the 1977 CTG for this industry, conducting a review of currently existing state and local VOC emission reduction approaches for this industry, and taking into account any information that has become available since then, EPA developed a new CTG entitled
States can follow the CTG and adopt state regulations to implement the recommendations contained therein. Alternatively, states can adopt a negative declaration documenting that there are no sources or emitting facilities within the state to which the CTG is applicable. The negative declaration must go through the same public review process as any other SIP submittal.
On July 15, 2015, EPA received from the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) a SIP revision (#15-03), dated June 25, 2015, concerning a negative declaration for the Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings CTG. MDE stated that the state previously had one source to which this CTG was applicable;
EPA is approving the Maryland SIP revision concerning the negative declaration for the Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings CTG, which was submitted on June 25, 2015, as a revision to the Maryland SIP in accordance with sections 172 (c), 182 (b), and 183 (e) of the CAA.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 9, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action concerning Maryland's negative declaration for the Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings CTG may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entry, “Negative Declaration for the Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings CTG,” at the end of the table to read as follows:
(e)* * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for carbon monoxide (CO), submitted by the State of Minnesota on July 16, 2015. The purpose of this revision is to establish transportation conformity criteria and procedures related to interagency consultation, and enforceability of certain transportation related control and mitigation measures.
This direct final rule will be effective February 9, 2016, unless EPA receives adverse comments by January 11, 2016. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0563, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Michael Leslie, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR 18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-6680,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This
Transportation conformity is required under section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (Act) to ensure that transportation planning activities are consistent with (“conform to”) air quality planning goals in nonattainment/maintenance areas. The transportation conformity regulation is found in 40 CFR 93 and provisions related to transportation conformity SIPs are found in 40 CFR 51.390. Transportation conformity applies to areas that are designated nonattainment or maintenance for the following transportation related criteria pollutants: Ozone, particulate matter, CO, and nitrogen dioxide. The Minneapolis-St. Paul area is currently maintenance for CO.
EPA originally promulgated the Federal transportation conformity criteria and procedures (“Transportation Conformity Rule”) on November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188). On August 10, 2005, the “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users” (SAFETEA-LU) was signed into law. SAFETEA-LU revised section 176(c) of the Act transportation conformity provisions. SAFETEA-LU streamlined the requirements for conformity SIPs. Under SAFETEA-LU, States are required to address and tailor only three sections of the rules in their conformity SIPs: 40 CFR 93.105, 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and, 40 CFR 93.125(c). 40 CFR 93.105 addresses consultation procedures for conformity. 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 40 CFR 93.125(c), addresses written commitments from project implementers of transportation control measures. In general, states are no longer required to submit conformity SIP revisions that address the other sections of the conformity rule.
A conformity SIP can be adopted as a state rule, as a memorandum of understanding, or a memorandum of agreement (MOA). The appropriate form of the state conformity procedures depends upon the requirements of local or State law, as long as the selected form complies with all requirements used by the ACT for adoption, submission to EPA, and implementation of SIPs. EPA will accept state conformity SIPs in any form provided the state can demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that, as a matter of state law, the state has adequate authority to compel compliance with the requirements of the conformity SIP.
Minnesota concluded that this SIP revision in the form of a MOA will be enforceable through a number of Minnesota statutes. These statutes authorize state agencies to enter into legally binding cooperative contracts for the receipt or furnishing of services. In this case, these services relate to the transportation/air quality planning process in Minnesota. Minnesota collaborated with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT), the EPA, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Metropolitan Council, and the Metropolitan Interstate Council, to develop the Transportation Conformity MOA. This MOA was agreed upon and signed by all of the above consultation parties.
EPA has evaluated this SIP submission and finds that the state has addressed the requirements of the Federal transportation conformity rule as described in 40 CFR 51.390 and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. The transportation conformity rule requires the states to develop their own processes and procedures for interagency consultation and resolution of conflicts meeting the criteria in 40 CFR 93.105. The SIP revision includes processes and procedures to be followed by the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT), the FHWA and the FTA, in consultation with the state and local air quality agencies and EPA before making transportation conformity determinations. Minnesota's transportation conformity SIP also included processes and procedures for the state and local air quality agencies and EPA to coordinate the development of applicable SIPs with the MPOs, the state Department of Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. DOT, and requires written commitments to control measures and mitigation measures (40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 93.125(c)).
EPA's review of the Minnesota SIP revision indicates that it is consistent with the Act as amended by SAFETEA-LU and EPA regulations (40 CFR part 93 subpart A and 40 CFR 51.390) governing state procedures for transportation conformity and interagency consultation and therefore EPA has concluded that the submittal is approvable.
EPA is approving a SIP revision submitted by the State of Minnesota, for the purpose of establishing transportation conformity criteria and procedures related to interagency consultation, and enforceable commitments to implement transportation related control and mitigation measures.
We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Under the Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 9, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(f) Approval—On July 16, 2015, the State of Minnesota submitted a revision to their Particulate Matter State Implementation Plan. The submittal establishes transportation conformity criteria and procedures related to interagency consultation, and the enforceability of certain transportation related control and mitigation measures.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking three separate final actions related to a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of South Carolina, through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC), on April 17, 2015. These final actions are for the York County, South Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte-Rock Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) nonattainment area (the entire area is hereinafter referred to as the “bi-State Charlotte Area” or “Area” and the South Carolina portion is hereinafter referred to as the “York County Area”). In these three final actions, EPA determines that the bi-state Charlotte Area is continuing to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; approves and incorporates South Carolina's plan for maintaining attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in the York County Area, including the 2014 and 2026 motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NO
This rule will be effective January 11, 2016.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0298. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Kelly Sheckler of the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mrs. Sheckler may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9992 or via electronic mail at
On May 21, 2012 (77 FR 30088), EPA designated areas as unclassifiable/attainment or nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS that was promulgated on March 27, 2008 (73 FR
On April 17, 2015, SC DHEC requested that EPA redesignate the South Carolina portion of the Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and submitted a SIP revision containing the State's plan for maintaining attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in the Area, including the 2014 and 2026 MVEBs for NO
Approval of South Carolina's redesignation request changes the legal designation of York County in the South Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area, found at 40 CFR 81.341, from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Approval of South Carolina's associated SIP revision also incorporates a plan into the SIP for maintaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the York County Area through 2026. The maintenance plan establishes NO
EPA is taking three separate final actions regarding the York County Area's redesignation to attainment and maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. First, EPA is determining that the bi-state Charlotte Area is continuing to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Second, EPA is approving and incorporating the maintenance plan for the York County Area, including the NO
Third, EPA is determining that South Carolina has met the criteria under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) for the York County Area for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On this basis, EPA is approving South Carolina's redesignation request for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the York County Area. As mentioned above, approval of the redesignation request changes the official designation of York County in the South Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS from nonattainment to attainment, as found at 40 CFR part 81.
EPA is also notifying the public that EPA finds the newly-established NO
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but rather results in the application of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• are certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• will not have disproportionate human health or environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this action for the state of South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the State of South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, “all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.” However, because no tribal lands are located within the South Carolina portion of the Area, this action is not approving any specific state requirement into the SIP that would apply to Tribal lands. Therefore, EPA has determined that this rule does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe. EPA notes today's action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 9, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control.
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
42 U.S.C. 7401
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Final rule; corrections and clarifications.
This document corrects errors and clarifies provisions of the final rule entitled “2015 Edition Health Information Technology (Health IT) Certification Criteria, 2015 Edition Base Electronic Health Record (EHR) Definition, and ONC Health IT Certification Program Modifications.”
This correction is effective January 14, 2016. The final rule appeared in the
Michael Lipinski, Office of Policy, National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, 202-690-7151.
Following the publication of
We also clarify requirements of the Common Clinical Data Set (CCDS), the privacy and security certification framework, and the mandatory disclosures for health IT developers in the “Clarifications” section below.
We incorrectly identified the adopted 2015 Edition “audit report(s)” certification criterion throughout the preamble as “unchanged” and eligible for gap certification. More specifically, we identified it incorrectly:
a. On page 62609, under Table 2 (“2015 Edition Health IT Certification Criteria”), as an unchanged criterion compared to the 2014 Edition and gap certification eligible.
b. On page 62656, second column, in the “Response” under “Audit Report(s),” as adopted as proposed (
c. On page 62681, under Table 6 (“Gap Certification Eligibility for 2015 Edition Health IT Certification Criteria”), as eligible for gap certification.
We adopted the standard at § 170.210(e) as revised to include the auditing of changes to user privileges in paragraph (e)(1)(i). The adopted 2015 Edition “audit report(s)” certification criterion references this standard. Therefore, it is a “revised” certification criterion as compared to the 2014 Edition “audit report(s)” certification criterion and ineligible for gap certification.
On page 62657, third column, third paragraph, the last sentence incorrectly references SHA-1. The commenters' statements were specific to SHA-2.
On page 62658, first column, mid-page, within the 2015 Edition “accounting of disclosures” certification criterion table, we inadvertently referenced the criterion as codified in 45 CFR 170.315(d)(10), when in fact it was codified in 45 CFR 170.315(d)(11). We note that the 2015 Edition “auditing actions on health information” certification criterion was codified in 45 CFR 170.315(d)(10).
On page 62668, third column, lines 2 and 3, there was a parenthetical error stating that we adopted the “transmission to public health agencies—antimicrobial use and resistance reporting” certification criterion as proposed (with both Volumes 1 and 2 of the HAI IG). The parenthetical is corrected to not reference volumes of the HL 7 Implementation Guide for CDA® Release 2—Level 3: Healthcare Associated Infection Reports, Release 1
On page 62696, second column, lines 8-14, we did not clearly indicate that only the narrative parts of the “Goals Section” and “Health Concerns Section” needed to be met in order to meet the CCDS definition. We refer readers to section III.A (“
On page 62742, first column, line 16 (§ 170.102), we inadvertently made an error in the 2015 Edition Base EHR definition by citing to § 170.315(a)(15) instead of § 170.315(a)(14). As discussed on pages 62625, 62630, 62691 and identified on page 62692 (Table 7), we included the “implantable device list” certification criterion (§ 170.315(a)(14)) in the 2015 Edition Base EHR definition as we proposed (80 FR 16806, 16825, 16870-16871). We did not propose to include nor intend to include the “social, psychological, and behavioral data” certification criterion (§ 170.315(a)(15)) in the 2015 Edition Base EHR definition.
On page 62744, third column, line 24 (§ 170.207(o)(1)(ii)), the code (20730005) attributed to “straight or heterosexual” was inaccurate. The correct code is 20
On page 62748, third column, line 1 (§ 170.315(a)(14)), we inadvertently omitted the word “and” at the end of the line. On the same page and column, line 42, we inadvertently added the word “and” when the “and” should have been at the end of line 47. On the same page and column, line 59, we inadvertently omitted the word “and” at the end of the line.
On page 62750, third column, line 63, we inaccurately cross-referenced paragraphs (ii) through (v) of the “data export” certification criterion (§ 170.315(b)(6)), when the cross-reference should have only been to paragraphs (iii) and (iv). Paragraph (v) should not have been referenced because there are only four paragraphs, ending with paragraph (iv). Paragraph (ii) should not have been cross-referenced because paragraph (ii) no longer includes a configuration capability that could be enabled. The configuration capability included in paragraph (ii) was intended to support user selection among the multiple document templates we proposed for inclusion in paragraph (ii) of this certification criterion. In the final rule, however, we only included the Continuity of Care Document (CCD) document template in paragraph (ii). Therefore, a configuration capability for selecting among document templates is no longer applicable and both the cross-reference to paragraph (ii) and the inclusion of configuration language in paragraph (ii) on page 62751, first column, lines 10-11, are incorrect. In terms of the configuration language in paragraph (ii), more specifically the inclusion of “configuration” in the paragraph title is an error as is the inclusion of the capability to “configure the technology” in the first sentence.
On page 62751, third column, line 22, we inadvertently included “at a minimum” language for the required patient insurance standard. The standard (Source of Payment Typology Code Set Version 5.0 (October 2011)) was adopted at § 170.207(s)(1), but we did not adopt this standard as a “minimum standards” code set (see 80 FR 62612).
On page 62751, third column, lines 25-26, we inadvertently included “at a minimum” language for the required patient sex standard. The standard for representing sex is the use of specific HL7 Version 3 codes and was adopted at § 170.207(n)(1). We did not adopt this standard as a “minimum standards” code set (see 80 FR 62612).
On page 62753, first column, lines 37 and 55 (§ 170.315(e)(1)(ii)), we inadvertently omitted references for a patient's authorized representative to have access to the specified capabilities related to the activity history log under the VDT certification criterion. As discussed on page 62658 and consistent with references throughout the VDT criterion, a patient's authorized representative access to these capabilities is the same as the patient for the purposes of testing and certification.
On page 62754, second column, lines 42-46 (§ 170.315(g)(6)(ii)), we inadvertently included a sentence stating that the scope of this certification criterion will not exceed the evaluation of the CCD, Referral Note, and Discharge Summary document templates. This statement is inconsistent with the preamble guidance of the final rule on page 62674, which states that we have required that Consolidated CDA (C-CDA) creation performance be demonstrated for the C-CDA Release 2.1 document templates required by the 2015 Edition certification criteria presented for certification. Certification to some criteria (
On page 62755, first column, lines 53 through 55 (§ 170.315(h)(1)(ii)), we inadvertently referenced the “Applicability Statement for Secure Health Transport” in the title for paragraph (ii) when it should have only been “Delivery Notification in Direct.”
On page 62755, second column, lines 4 through 6 (§ 170.315(h)(2)(ii)), we again inadvertently referenced the “Applicability Statement for Secure Health Transport” in the title for paragraph (ii) when it should have only been “Delivery Notification in Direct.”
On page 62756, third column, lines 35-36 (§ 170.523(k)(1)(ii)(A)), we inadvertently cross-referenced the wrong data from § 170.523(f)(1). We did not intend to cross-reference § 170.523(f)(1)(xvii) (certification to standards used to meet a certification criterion). The required data elements for disclosure were intended to be consistent across the editions. This data is not a required data element for the mandatory disclosures for health IT certified to the 2014 Edition. We did, however, intend to require the disclosure of § 170.523(f)(1)(xv) (certification to clinical quality measures), which was inadvertently omitted but consistent with the new and previous 2014 Edition disclosure requirements. We also refer readers to section III.C (“
On page 62756, third column, lines 42-43 (§ 170.523(k)(1)(ii)(B)), we inadvertently omitted cross-references to paragraphs (f)(2)(iii) (product version) and (vi) (any additional relied upon software used to demonstrate compliance with a certification criterion or criteria) of § 170.523. The parallel requirements were included in the required disclosures for health IT certified to the 2015 Edition and were previously required to be disclosed as part of certification to the 2014 Edition.
On page 62758, third column, lines 4 and 10 (§ 170.556(c)(5)), we twice inadvertently cross-referenced paragraph (c)(3) of § 170.556 instead of paragraph (c)(4) of § 170.556. Paragraph (c)(4) includes the requirements for locations as they would apply to the “exclusion and exhaustion” requirements of paragraph (c)(5).
On page 62759, second column, lines 23-24 (§ 170.556(d)(6)), we inadvertently included language suggesting that termination was limited to suspensions in the context of randomized surveillance. Consistent with the preamble discussion on pages 62716-62718, termination can follow any suspension if the health IT developer has not completed the actions necessary to reinstate the suspended certification.
In the final rule (§ 170.102), we define the CCDS to mean data
First, we clarify that the references to these four specific C-CDA section templates is
Second, we clarify for the Assessment and Plan of Treatment, Goals, and Health Concerns data that only the narrative part of the referenced C-CDA section templates is necessary and required in order to satisfy the CCDS. Further and in support of this clarification, testing and certification will focus on the presence of data represented consistent with just the narrative part of the referenced section templates. Similar to our points above, given that these section templates in the C-CDA have two parts (a narrative part and coded requirements part for C-CDA), we believe that it is necessary to make this interpretation explicit so as to prevent health IT developers from over-interpreting this definition's data requirements to include more data than we had intended.
Under § 170.550(h)(4)(ii), a Health IT Module can meet applicable 2015 Edition privacy and security certification criterion by demonstrating, through system documentation that is sufficiently detailed to enable integration, that the Health IT Module has implemented service interfaces for each applicable privacy and security certification criterion that enable the Health IT Module to
We clarify that for compliance with § 170.523(k)(1)(ii)(A), the only information that must be disclosed to meet the data requirement specified in § 170.523(f)(1)(viii) is the certification criterion or criteria to which the Health IT Module has been certified. This is consistent with the disclosure requirements for certification to the 2014 Edition.
We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
In our view, this correcting and clarifying document does not constitute a rulemaking that would be subject to the APA notice and comment requirements. This document corrects errors and clarifies provisions of the 2015 Edition final rule published on October 16, 2015. It does not make substantive changes to the policies that were adopted. As a result, this correcting document is intended to ensure that the final rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in that final rule.
In addition, even if this were a rulemaking to which the notice and comment requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the final rule would be contrary to the public interest. Furthermore, such procedures would be unnecessary, as we are not altering the policies that were already subject to comment and finalized in our final rule. Therefore, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment requirements.
1. On page 62609, correct Table 2 as follows:
a. Remove “Audit Report(s)” from the “Unchanged Criteria as Compared to the 2014 Edition (Gap Certification Eligible)” category and insert it with an in asterisk (
b. Revise the “Unchanged Criteria as Compared to the 2014 Edition (Gap Certification Eligible) (16)” title to “Unchanged Criteria as Compared to the 2014 Edition (Gap Certification Eligible) (15)”.
c. Revise the “Revised Criteria as Compared to the 2014 Edition (25)” title to “Revised Criteria as Compared to the 2014 Edition (26)”.
2. On page 62656, second column, in the “Response” under “Audit Report(s),” correct the first sentence to read “We have adopted this certification criterion as revised to support the audit reporting of changes in user privileges consistent with the adopted 2015 Edition “auditable events and tamper resistance” certification criterion.”
3. On page 62657, third column, third paragraph, correct the last sentence to read “A few commenters requested that we wait until 2017 or 2018 to increase the standard to SHA-2.”
4. On page 62658, first column, mid-page, within the 2015 Edition “accounting of disclosures” certification criterion table, the citation is corrected to read “45 CFR 170.315(d)(11).”
5. On page 62668, third column, lines 2 and 3, correct the parenthetical to read “(with the HAI IG).”
6. On page 62681, Table 6, remove “(d)(3) Audit report(s)” from the “2015 Edition” column and “(d)(3) Audit report(s)” from the “2014 Edition” column.
7. On page 62696, second column, lines 8-14, correct the sentence to read “Thus, other C-CDA document templates such as CCD, Referral Note, and Discharge Summary would need to be able to exchange the narrative information from the “Goals Section” and “Health Concerns Section” in order to meet the Common Clinical Data Set definition.”
2015 Edition Base EHR * * *
(3) Has been certified to the certification criteria adopted by the Secretary in § 170.315(a)(1), (2), or (3); (a)(5) through (9); (a)(11); (a)(14); (b)(1) and (6); (c)(1); (g)(7) through (9); and (h)(1) or (2);
(o) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii)
(a) * * *
(14) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Device Identifier; and
(iv) * * *
(A) The active Unique Device Identifiers recorded for the patient;
(B) For each active Unique Device Identifier recorded for a patient, the description of the implantable device specified by paragraph (a)(14)(iii)(A) of this section; and
(v) * * *
(C) The identifiers associated with the Unique Device Identifier, as specified by paragraph (a)(14)(ii) of this section; and
(b) * * *
(6) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Enable a user to set the configuration options specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(iii) and (iv) of this section when creating an export summary as well as a set of export summaries for patients whose information is stored in the technology. A user must be able to execute these capabilities at any time the user chooses and without subsequent developer assistance to operate.
(ii)
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) * * *
(E) Patient insurance in accordance with the standard specified in § 170.207(s)(1).
* * *
(G) Patient sex in accordance with the version of the standard specified in § 170.207(n)(1).
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) When any of the capabilities included in paragraphs (e)(1)(i)(A) through (C) of this section are used, the following information must be recorded and made accessible to the patient (or his/her authorized representative):
(B) Technology presented for certification may demonstrate
(g) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii)
(h) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii)
(2) * * *
(ii)
(d) * * *
(6) If a certified Complete EHR or certified Health IT Module's certification has been suspended, an ONC-ACB is permitted to initiate certification termination procedures for the Complete EHR or Health IT Module (consistent with its accreditation to ISO/IEC 17065 and procedures for terminating a certification) when the developer has not completed the actions necessary to reinstate the suspended certification.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) proposes to amend the Cotton Board Rules and Regulations to remove the cotton import
Comments must be received on or before January 11, 2016.
Written comments may be submitted to the addresses specified below. All comments will be made available to the public. Please do not include any personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publically disclosed. All comments may be posted on the Internet and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines. Comments may be submitted anonymously.
Comments, identified by AMS-CN-14-0037, may be submitted electronically through the
Shethir M. Riva, Chief, Research and Promotion Staff, Cotton and Tobacco Program, AMS, USDA, 100 Riverside Parkway, Suite 101, Fredericksburg, Virginia, 22406, telephone (540) 361-2726, facsimile (540) 361-1199, or email at
Amendments to the Cotton Research and Promotion Act (7 U.S.C. 2101-2118) (Act) were enacted by Congress under Subtitle G of Title XIX of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-624, 104 stat. 3909, November 28, 1990). These amendments contained two provisions that authorize changes in the funding procedures for the Cotton Research and Promotion Program. These provisions provide for: (1) The assessment of imported cotton and cotton products; and (2) termination of refunds to cotton producers. (Prior to the 1990 amendments to the Act, producers could request assessment refunds.)
As amended, the Cotton Research and Promotion Order (7 CFR part 1205) (Order) was approved by producers and importers voting in a referendum held July 17-26, 1991, and the amended Order was published in the
The total value of assessment levied on cotton imports is the sum of two parts. The first part of the assessment is based on the weight of cotton imported—levied at a rate of $1 per bale of cotton, which is equivalent to 500 pounds, or $1 per 226.8 kilograms of cotton. The second part of the import assessment (referred to as the supplemental assessment) is based on the value of imported cotton lint or the cotton contained in imported cotton products—levied at a rate of five-tenths of one percent of the value of domestically produced cotton. The current assessment on imported cotton is $0.012013 per kilogram of imported cotton.
The Cotton Research and Promotion Act provides that “Any
The
In January 2014, AMS became aware of CBP's automation processes in connection with documenting and collecting assessments. CBP indicated that the documentation and collection process is automated and costs have been significantly decreased. Taking into account technological advancements in the fee collection process, CBP no longer charges USDA for the collection of assessments on agricultural commodities. This has eliminated the administrative burden associated with the collection of assessments.
AMS proposes to strike subparagraph (i) under paragraph § 1205.510(b)(3) of the Cotton Research and Promotion Rules and Regulations and append to the paragraph section the language currently in subparagraph (ii). This proposed action reflects the technological efficiencies of the CBP import documentation process by eliminating the
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to access all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This action has been designated as a “non-significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. The Cotton Research and Promotion Act (7 U.S.C. 2101-2118) (Act) provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 12 of the Act, any person subject to an order may file with the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) a petition stating that the order, any provision of the plan, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and requesting a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such person is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, the Secretary would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the District Court of the United States in any district in which the person is an inhabitant, or has his principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's ruling, provided a complaint is filed within 20 days from the date of the entry of ruling.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has examined the economic impact of this rule on small entities. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such action so that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. The Small Business Administration defines, in 13 CFR part 121, small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of no more than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms (importers) as having receipts of no more than $7,000,000. In 2013, an estimated 17,000 importers are subject to the rules and regulations issued pursuant to the Cotton Research and Promotion Order. Most are considered small entities as defined by the Small Business Administration.
This rule would only affect importers of cotton and cotton-containing products whose calculated assessment for any line item entry of cotton appearing on a CBP entry document whose calculated assessment is two dollars ($2.00) or less. While data allowing for estimates of the number of importers that would be impacted does not exist, it is estimated that a very small portion of the estimated 17,000 importers would be affected by eliminating the
There are no Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
In compliance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations (5 CFR part 1320) which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. chapter 35
A 30-day comment period is provided to comment on the changes to the Cotton Board Rules and Regulations proposed herein. This period is deemed appropriate because this rule would help ensure that the assessments collected on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products would be the same as those paid on domestically produced cotton. Accordingly, the change in this rulemaking, if adopted, should be implemented as soon as possible.
Advertising, Agricultural research, Cotton, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, AMS proposes to amend 7 CFR part 1205 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 2101-2118.
The term
The revision reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(3) The following table contains Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) classification numbers and corresponding conversion factors and assessments. The left column of the following table indicates the HTS classifications of imported cotton and cotton-containing products subject to assessment. The center column indicates the conversion factor for determining the raw fiber content for each kilogram of the HTS. HTS numbers for raw cotton have no conversion factor in the table. The right column indicates the total assessment per kilogram of the article assessed. In the event that any HTS number subject to assessment is changed and such change is merely a replacement of a previous number and has no impact on the physical properties, description, or cotton content of the product involved, assessments will continue to be collected based on the new number.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-03-14, for all Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. AD 2014-03-14 currently requires removing bulb-type maintenance lights; installing a drain mast on certain airplanes; and installing muffs on connecting bleed elements on certain airplanes. Since we issued AD 2014-03-14, we have determined that additional actions are necessary to address the identified unsafe condition for certain airplanes on which muffs are installed. For certain Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes, this proposed AD would also require replacing certain insulation sleeves with new insulation sleeves. We are proposing this AD to prevent ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 25, 2016.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On January 31, 2014, we issued AD 2014-03-14, Amendment 39-17752 (79 FR 9382, February 19, 2014). AD 2014-03-14 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes.
Since we issued AD 2014-03-14, Amendment 39-17752 (79 FR 9382, February 19, 2014), the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0148, dated June 13, 2014 (referred to after this the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
[Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank Systems in flight and on ground] * * *, the FAA published Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 88, and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) published Interim Policy INT/POL/25/12.
In response to these regulations, a global design review conducted by Airbus on the A330 and A340 type design Section 19, which is a flammable fluid leakage zone and
This condition, if not corrected, in combination with a fuel leak generating flammable vapours in the area, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the aeroplane.
To address this unsafe condition, Airbus developed various modifications of the aeroplane, to be embodied in service.
Consequently, EASA issued AD 2013-0033 [
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it was reported that, for A340-200/-300 aeroplanes, accomplishment instructions in the applicable Airbus Service Bulletins (SB) for aeroplanes in Configurations 002 and 005 were detailed in Configuration 003 and, conversely, accomplishment instructions for aeroplane[s] in Configuration 003 were detailed in Configurations 002 and 005. This can lead to incorrect installation of some insulation sleeves on the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) Air Bleed Ducts between Frame 83 and 84 for configurations 002, 003 and 005 as per Airbus SB A340-36-4035 at original issue. Prompted by this finding, Airbus revised the affected SB with additional work required for aeroplanes included in configurations 002, 003 and 005 that were modified using the original issue of the SB.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0033, which is superseded, incorporates reference to the corrected Airbus SB A340-36-4035 Revision 01 and requires the additional work as specified in Airbus SB A340-36-4035 Revision 01 for aeroplanes already modified per the original SB A340-36-4035.
The additional work is replacing the insulation sleeves between frames 83 and 84 with new insulation sleeves. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued the following service bulletins.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-33-3041, Revision 02, dated November 7, 2013, which describes procedures for removing bulb-type maintenance lights.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-36-3037, Revision 02, dated April 7, 2014, which describes procedures for bleed leak detection loop modification of the auxiliary power unit (APU).
• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-33-4026, Revision 02, dated November 7, 2013, which describes procedures for removing bulb-type maintenance lights.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-36-4033, Revision 02, dated May 19, 2014, which describes procedures for bleed leak detection loop modification of the APU.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-36-4035, Revision 01, dated September 24, 2013, which describes procedures for installing muffs on connecting bleed elements on certain airplanes.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
In paragraph (i) of AD 2014-03-14, Amendment 39-17752 (79 FR 9382, February 19, 2014), an optional method of compliance is permitted using Airbus Service Bulletin A330-36-3037, Revision 01, dated January 24, 2013; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-36-4033, Revision 01, dated January 28, 2013; as applicable. In addition, credit is given in paragraph (k)(3) of AD 2014-03-14 for using Airbus Service Bulletin A340-36-4033, dated September 23, 2011.
However, the MCAI only allows the use of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-36-3037, Revision 02, dated April 7, 2014; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-36-4033, Revision 02, dated May 19, 2014; as applicable. Additional work is necessary for airplanes on which earlier revisions of this service information was done.
Therefore, in paragraph (i) of this proposed AD, we refer to only Airbus Service Bulletin A330-36-3037, Revision 02, dated April 7, 2014; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-36-4033, Revision 02, dated May 19, 2014; as applicable.
The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for annotating which procedures and tests in the service information are required for compliance with an AD. Differentiating these procedures and tests from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. The procedures and tests identified as RC (required for compliance) in any service information have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an identified unsafe condition.
As specified in a Note under the Accomplishment Instructions of certain specified service information, procedures and tests that are identified as RC in any service information must be done to comply with the proposed AD. However, procedures and tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC will require approval of an AMOC.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 43 Model A330 series airplanes of U.S. registry. There are no Model A340 airplanes registered in the U.S.
The actions that are required by AD 2014-03-14, Amendment 39-17752 (79 FR 9382, February 19, 2014), and retained in this proposed AD take about 21 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $5,219 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2014-03-14 is $7,004 per product.
We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per product to
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by January 25, 2016.
This AD replaces AD 2014-03-14, Amendment 39-17752 (79 FR 9382, February 19, 2014).
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, -313, -541, and -642 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26, Fire protection; 33, Lights; 36, Pneumatic; 53, Fuselage.
This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the airplane manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-03-14, Amendment 39-17752 (79 FR 9382, February 19, 2014), with new service information. Except for airplanes on which Airbus Modification 56739 has been incorporated in production: Within 26 months after March 26, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-03-14), remove the maintenance lights, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Airbus service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-33-3041, Revision 01, dated July 10, 2012; or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-33-3041, Revision 02, dated November 7, 2013 (for Model A330 series airplanes). As of the effective date of this AD, use only Airbus Service Bulletin A330-33-3041, Revision 02, dated November 7, 2013, for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD (for Model A330 series airplanes).
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-33-4026, Revision 01, dated July 10, 2012; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-33-4026, Revision 02, dated November 7, 2013 (for Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes). As of the effective date of this AD, use only Airbus Service Bulletin A340-33-4026, Revision 02, dated November 7, 2013, for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD (for Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes).
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-33-5006, dated January 3, 2012 (for Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes).
For Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes, Airbus has issued Airbus Service Bulletin A340-33-5007 to introduce halogen-type lights which are qualified as explosion proof and that can be installed (at operators' discretion) after removal of the non-explosion-proof lights required by paragraph (g) of this AD. For Model A330 series airplanes and Model A340-200/-300 series airplanes, Airbus has issued Airbus Service Bulletins A330-33-3042 and A340-33-4027 for the installation of similar lights.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2014-03-14, Amendment 39-17752 (79 FR 9382, February 19, 2014), with no changes. For Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes, except those airplanes on which Airbus Modification 52260 has been incorporated in production: Within 26 months after March 26, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-03-14), install insulation muffs on the connecting auxiliary power unit (APU) bleed air duct, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Airbus service information specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-36-3038, dated January 16, 2012, for Model A330 series airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A330-36-3032 has been incorporated.
(2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-36-3040, Revision 01, dated November 26, 2012, for Model A330 series airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A330-36-3032 has not been incorporated.
(3) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-36-4035, Revision 01, dated September 24, 2013, for Model A340 series airplanes.
This paragraph restates the alternative action specified in paragraph (i) of AD 2014-03-14, Amendment 39-17752 (79 FR 9382, February 19, 2014), with new service information. For Model A330 series airplanes
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-36-3037, Revision 02, dated April 7, 2014.
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-36-4033, Revision 02, dated May 19, 2014.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2014-03-14, Amendment 39-17752 (79 FR 9382, February 19, 2014), with no changes. For Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes, except those on which Airbus Modification 54636 or 54637 has been incorporated in production: Within 26 months after March 26, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-03-14), install a drain mast between frame (FR) 80 and FR 83, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-53-5031, Revision 02, dated August 3, 2011.
For Model A340 series airplanes in configurations 002, 003, and 005, as described in Airbus Service Bulletin A340-36-4035, dated September 18, 2012, that have been modified before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A340-36-4035, dated September 18, 2012: Within 14 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the insulation sleeves between frames 83 and 84 with new insulation sleeves, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A340-36-4035, Revision 01, dated September 24, 2013.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before March 26, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-03-14, Amendment 39-17752 (79 FR 9382, February 19, 2014)), using Airbus Service Bulletin A330-33-3041, dated January 3, 2012; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-33-4026, dated January 3, 2012; as applicable; which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before March 26, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-03-14, Amendment 39-17752 (79 FR 9382, February 19, 2014)), using Airbus Service Bulletin A330-36-3040, dated September 18, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(3) For Model A340 series airplanes in configurations 001 and 004, as described in Airbus Service Bulletin A340-36-4035, dated September 18, 2012: This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A340-36-4035, dated September 18, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(4) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before March 26, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-03-14, Amendment 39-17752 (79 FR 9382, February 19, 2014)), using Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-5031, dated July 31, 2006; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-5031, Revision 01, dated January 10, 2008; as applicable; which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
(ii) AMOCs approved previously for paragraphs (g) and (h) of AD 2014-03-14, Amendment 39-17752 (79 FR 9382, February 19, 2014), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0148, dated June 13, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes equipped with General Electric engines. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracking in barrel nuts on a forward engine mount of Model 747-8 airplanes, which shares a similar design to the forward engine mount of Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes. This proposed AD would require, for certain airplanes, replacement of the four barrel nuts of the forward engine mount on each engine. For certain other airplanes, this proposed AD would require an inspection to determine if any forward
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 25, 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 Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone: 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax: 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Allen Rauschendorfer, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6487; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received a report indicating that during the replacement of the No. 2 engine on a Model 747-8 airplane, an operator conducted a non-destructive test (NDT) inspection of the barrel nuts on the forward engine mount and found cracks on two of the four barrel nuts. The same operator also discovered one cracked barrel nut on the No. 1 engine of the same Model 747-8 airplane. Boeing did an NDT inspection on the barrel nuts of the No. 2 engine of a Model 747-8 flight test airplane and discovered two barrel nuts with cracks. Since these initial findings, two additional barrel nuts were found cracked on two additional Model 747-8 airplanes.
The barrel nuts are located at the forward end of the strut box and are used to fasten the forward engine mount to the strut. A barrel nut with a crack on one side is still able to carry ultimate load. A crack on both sides of a barrel nut will cause complete failure of the barrel nut. Complete failure of two or more barrel nuts on the same forward engine mount reduces the load capacity of the forward engine mount and could result in separation of an engine from the airplane, and consequent loss of control of the airplane.
Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes with General Electric engines have a similar forward engine mount bolt and barrel nut configuration to that on Model 747-8 series airplanes. Therefore, Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes are subject to the same unsafe condition revealed on Model 747-8 series airplanes. We issued AD 2013-24-12, Amendment 39-17686 (78 FR 71989, December 2, 2013), to address this unsafe condition on Model 747-8 series airplanes.
We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB710026-00, Issue 001, dated June 10, 2015. The service information describes procedures for replacing the forward engine mount barrel nuts with new, improved barrel nuts; doing an inspection to determine if barrel nuts having a certain part number are installed on the forward engine mount; and doing related investigative and corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.” For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
The phrase “related investigative actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Related investigative actions” are follow-on actions that (1) are related to the primary actions, and (2) further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.
The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Corrective actions” are actions that correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.
The service specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
• In accordance with a method that we approve; or
• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.
The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for annotating which steps in the service information are required for compliance with an AD. Differentiating these steps from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. The steps identified as Required for Compliance (RC) in any service information identified previously have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an identified unsafe condition.
For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the following provisions apply: (1) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD, and an AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures; and (2) steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 36 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any related investigative actions that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition corrective actions specified in this proposed AD.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by January 25, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes, certificated in any category, equipped with General Electric GEnx-1B engines, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB710026-00, Issue 001, dated June 10, 2015.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in barrel nuts on a forward engine mount of Model 747-8 airplanes, which shares a similar design to the forward engine mount of Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the forward engine mount barrel nuts; such cracking could result in reduced load capacity of the forward engine mount, and could result in separation of an engine from the airplane, and consequent loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For Group 1 airplanes as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB710026-00, Issue 001, dated June 10, 2015: Except as provided by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, at the time specified in paragraph 5., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB710026-00, Issue 001, dated June 10, 2015, replace the existing forward engine mount barrel nuts on each engine, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB710026-00, Issue 001, dated June 10, 2015.
For Group 2 airplanes as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB710026-00, Issue 001, dated June 10, 2015: Except as provided by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, at the time specified in paragraph 5. “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB710026-00, Issue 001, dated June 10, 2015, review the aircraft maintenance records to determine if the airplane engine has been removed, installed, or replaced, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB710026-00, Issue 001, dated June 10, 2015. If the maintenance records indicate that a barrel nut having part number SL4081C14SP1 is installed, or if the part number of an installed barrel nut cannot be determined, before further flight, do the related investigative and applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB710026-00, Issue 001, dated June 10, 2015.
(1) Where Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB710026-00, Issue 001, dated June 10, 2015, specifies a compliance time “after the Issue 001 date on this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB710026-00, Issue 001, dated June 10, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Allen Rauschendorfer, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6487; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone: 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax: 206-766-5680; Internet
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule establishes the Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP) and provides guidance, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for identifying a family member with special needs, and coordinating travel at government expense for family members of active duty Service members who meet the
Comments must be received by February 9, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Rebecca Lombardi, 571-372-0862.
This proposed rule would implement 10 U.S.C. 1781c, which established the Office of Community Support for Military Families with Special Needs (OSN). Under this proposed rule, the OSN would be housed within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. The purpose of the Office is to enhance and improve Department of Defense support around the world for military families with special needs (whether medical or educational needs) through the development of appropriate policies, enhancement and dissemination of appropriate information throughout the Department of Defense, support for such families in obtaining referrals for services and in obtaining services and oversight of the activities of the military departments in support of families. The OSN would be responsible for developing an EFMP policy that addresses the development and implementation of a community support program across the Services, and expand coordination of assignments for military families with special needs within and outside the United States.
The rule would provide guidance for identifying family members with special needs and requires the Military Services to establish a system to identify, document and consider a military family member's special medical and educational needs when approving travel at government expense. It would also provide guidance for the processing of overseas assignments for DoD civilian employees who have family members with special needs. The rule also would establish a system of monitoring and assigning oversight responsibilities for the EFMP as well as authorizing the development of implementing guidance and forms necessary for the operation of the EFMP.
The Department of Defense and the Military Departments, which are responsible for providing services to Military families with special needs, receive their funding from the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) defense-wide budget. The approximate cost for the Exceptional Family Member Program for FY2011 was $30,509,878.93.
This proposed rule is part of DoD's retrospective plan, completed in August 2011, under Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” DoD's full plan and updates can be accessed at:
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distribute impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action,” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2014, that threshold is approximately $141 million. This proposed rule will not mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal governments, nor will it affect private sector costs.
The Department of Defense certifies that this proposed rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.
It has been certified that 32 CFR part 75 does impose reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. These reporting requirements have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget and assigned OMB Control Number 0704-0411, titled Exceptional Family Member Program.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. This proposed rule will not have a substantial effect on State and local governments.
The applicable SORN for the Exceptional Family Member program is: DHA 16 DoD. The system name is the Special Needs Program Management Information System (SNPMIS) Records (available at
The Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for this program is available at
The Special Needs Program Management Information System (SNPMIS) provides access to a comprehensive program of therapy, medical support, and social services for young Department of Defense (DoD) Military Health System (MHS) beneficiaries with special needs. SNPMIS is the Military Health System (MHS) automated information system designed to ensure the DoD meets the unique information requirements associated with implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). SNPMIS captures records referral, evaluation, eligibility, and service plan data for children with special needs who are eligible for MHS services under IDEA. This system is a distributed data collection application with database servers distributed at various Medical Treatment Facilities (MTFs) located within the Continental United States (CONUS) and Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS). SNPMIS is currently used in 45 EDIS clinics at Army, Navy, and Air Force installations worldwide.
Children, Family health, Special needs.
Accordingly 32 CFR part 75 is proposed to be added to read as follows:
10 U.S.C. 1781c
This part:
(a) Establishes the EFMP and establishes policy, provides guidance, assigns responsibilities and prescribes procedures for:
(1) Identifying a family member with special needs who is eligible for services as defined in this part.
(2) Coordinating travel at government expense for family members of active duty Service members who meet the DoD criteria for special medical or educational needs.
(3) Processing DoD civilian employees who have family members with special needs for an overseas assignment.
(4) Providing family support services to military families with special needs.
(b) Establishes a system of monitoring and assigns oversight responsibilities for the EFMP.
(c) Authorizes the development of implementing guidance and forms necessary for the operation of the EFMP in accordance with this part.
(d) Does not create any rights or remedies in addition to those already otherwise existing in law or regulation, and may not be relied upon by any person, organization, or other entity to allege a denial of such rights or remedies.
This part applies to:
(a) The Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the DoD (referred to collectively in this part as the “DoD Components”).
(b) Service members who have family members with special needs as described in this part.
(c) All DoD civilian employees in overseas locations and selectees for overseas positions who have family members with special needs as described in this part.
Unless otherwise noted, these terms and their definitions are for the purpose of this part.
For the purposes of § 75.8 of this part only, this definition also includes civilian employees on an overseas assignment, or being considered for an overseas assignment, and their dependents who are, or will be, eligible to receive a DoD identification card during that overseas assignment. To the extent authorized by law and in accordance with Service implementing guidance, the term may also include other nondependent family members of a civilian employee on an overseas assignment.
(1) A valid requirement for the active duty Service member's grade and military occupational specialty.
(2) Availability of required medical services.
(3) Availability of required educational staff necessary to provide EIS and special education to the active duty Service member's child with special educational needs.
It is DoD policy that:
(a) The EFMP identifies family members with special needs, enrolls sponsors in the program, and participates in the coordination of assignments for active duty Service members in order for the special needs of family members to be considered during the assignment process.
(b) Active duty Service members whose families include a member with special needs must enroll in the EFMP to ensure their family members' special needs are considered during the assignment coordination.
(c) The EFMP provides family support services, including non-clinical case management, to military families with special needs regardless of the sponsor's Service affiliation or enrollment status in the EFMP, as described in § 75.9 of this part. Family support service to the Reserve Component is dependent upon each Service's eligibility requirements.
(d) Active duty Service members whose families include a member with special needs may be stabilized in Alaska, Hawaii, or a continental United States (CONUS) assignment location for a minimum of 4 years when:
(1) The arrangement is initiated by the Service member.
(2) The family member has a documented need for stabilization, as determined by Service-specific guidance.
(3) Stabilization does not have an adverse effect on the mission requirements of the Military Department.
(4) The career development of the Service member has been considered and is not affected adversely.
(e) The special needs of a civilian family member will not be considered in the selection of a civilian for an overseas position.
(a) The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD (P&R)):
(1) Provides for an OSN, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1781c.
(2) Submits an annual report to Congress pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1781c on the activities of the OSN, including identification of gaps in services for military families with special needs and actions being taken or planned to address such gaps.
(b) Under the authority, direction, and control of the USD(P&R), the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASD(M&RA)):
(1) Consults with the Secretaries of the Military Departments, as appropriate, to ensure the development, implementation, and monitoring of an effective EFMP across DoD, in accordance with this part.
(2) Resolves disputes among the DoD Components regarding the implementation of procedures in § 75.6 through § 75.10 of this part.
(3) Requires the Military Services and DoD Education Activity (DoDEA) to notify OSN of additions, deletions, or substitutions to the locations of EIS and special education in overseas military communities.
(4) Convenes a meeting at least once a year to review the implementation of this part. Representatives from the ASD(M&RA); the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (ASD(HA)); the General Counsel of the Department of Defense; the Secretaries of the Military Departments; must attend. A representative of the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall be invited to attend. Participants will:
(i) Represent functional areas including: military medical; military and civilian personnel; housing; dependents' education; legal; child and
(ii) Review Service and DoDEA reports on family support services, assignment coordination, the pinpoint locations of EIS and special education overseas, and data requirements of this part.
(c) Under the authority, direction, and control of the USD(P&R), the ASD(HA):
(1) Advises the USD(P&R) regarding the availability of specialized medical services to family members with special needs.
(2) Collaborates with the OSN on medical issues related to this part.
(3) Participates in the development and deployment of a data management system, including appropriate interfaces that support the EFMP mission.
(4) Ensures that policies and procedures are in place within the Military Health System (MHS) to safeguard personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) gathered during the medical processes required by this part in accordance with 32 CFR part 310, DoD Instruction 6025.18, “Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information in DoD Health Care Programs” (available at
(5) Ensures procedures are established to make purchased care providers aware of the mandatory enrollment requirements when a family member of an active duty Service member is identified within the purchased care system with a medical condition that meets the criteria in § 75.6.
(6) Ensures that there is a medical case management program to support military families with special medical needs following Defense Health Program eligibility guidelines. The case managers will collaborate with the EFMP non-clinical family support services personnel in assisting the eligible population consistent with 32 CFR part 310, DoD Instruction 6025.18, and DoD 8580.02-R.
(d) Under the authority, direction, and control of the ASD(M&RA), the Director, DoDEA:
(1) Designates and updates as necessary a point of contact in each DoDEA overseas area to review the DD Form 2792-1 (available at
(2) Makes recommendations to the Military Services and Defense Agencies on the availability of special education services.
(3) Ensures that policies and procedures are in place to inform families of the requirement to enroll in the EFMP when their child is enrolled in a DoDEA school and is covered by an IEP.
(4) Requests reimbursement from the sending Military Department when there is a failure to coordinate an overseas assignment with DoDEA that results in the assignment of the Service member to an overseas location when one or more of the following conditions are met:
(i) DoDEA personnel are not available to provide special education pursuant to the child's IEP.
(ii) There is no DoD school, but DoDEA has the responsibility to provide special education pursuant to the child's IEP.
(iii) The DoDEA incurs expenses (
(5) Submit an annual memorandum to the ASD(M&RA), reflecting the prior school year's data (
(i) Assignments coordinated by the DoDEA to include locations, travel recommendations and the associated military department.
(ii) Problematic assignments, including the reasons (
(iii) Problematic assignments for which reimbursement was considered.
(e) The Secretaries of the Military Departments:
(1) Establish guidance consistent with this part and ensure leadership oversight at all levels of military command for implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of this part.
(2) Program, budget, and allocate sufficient funds and other resources, including staffing, to meet the policy objectives of this part.
(3) Establish an EFMP within their Department that includes identification and enrollment, assignment coordination, and family support services components; and promote collaboration between the three components.
(4) Ensure that when a family member of an active duty Service member is identified within a military treatment facility with a medical condition that meets the criteria in § 75.6, that the Service member is referred to the Service-specific EFMP point of contact. Confirm that the EFMP point of contact will enroll the Service member and follow-up to complete the DD Form 2792, “Family Member Medical Summary.”
(5) Require military treatment facility personnel to be trained on the policies and procedures in this part.
(6) Participate in the development and deployment of a data management system, including appropriate interfaces that support the EFMP mission.
(7) Publish the guidelines that define the EFMP on the appropriate Headquarters Service Web site and ensure that all installation Web sites link to this official information.
(8) Ensure the establishment of generic email addresses for installation EFMP family support services personnel as well as the medical offices supporting the EFMP so that Service members and their family members have easy access to support capabilities.
(9) Establish policies and procedures to safeguard PII and PHI.
(10) Ensure the establishment of screening and evaluation procedures for the purpose of identifying family members of active duty Service members with special needs. The guidelines should be commensurate with established TRICARE access to care standards, and include those family members whose primary provider is in the TRICARE network.
(11) Ensure annual education and training to key personnel is conducted on the policies and procedures in this part and on topics appropriate to providing family support services. These topics may include EIS, special education, Medicaid, supplemental security income, and TRICARE benefits, including the extended health care option and any other programs that benefit military families with special needs.
(12) Require that information on this part be provided to all active duty Service members and their families, regardless of location, and to civilian employees or selectees who have applied for government employment in overseas locations.
(13) Ensure military personnel activities coordinate all assignments with the responsible Military Department or other DoD Component when the sponsor requests accompanied
(14) Ensure military personnel activities coordinate all CONUS assignments of Service members enrolled in the EFMP with the responsible Military Department or other DoD Component. Refer to the Joint Travel Regulations for PCS travel and transportation allowances for eligible Service members and family members.
(15) Establish procedures to reimburse DoDEA when there is a failure to coordinate such assignments that result in the conditions described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
(16) Require the military personnel activities to coordinate with the appropriate Military Department when considering Service member assignment(s) to an overseas area where the provision of EIS and related services is the responsibility of another Military Department, in accordance with § 75.8 of this part.
(17) Require human resources representatives to advise civilian employees or selectees for an overseas position of the availability of services to meet the family member's special needs in the specific assignment location.
(18) Submit an annual report (not later than January 15) to the ASD(M&RA) identifying:
(i) EFMP enrollment and assignment function:
(A) Total number of Service members enrolled in the EFMP.
(B) Total number of family members enrolled in EFMP.
(C) Total number of assignments of Service members enrolled in the EFMP that were coordinated in the last year.
(D) Assignment problems, including early return of family members or reassignment of the Service member resulting from failure to enroll in the EFMP or inaccuracies in the enrollment information.
(E) Total number of requested stabilizations, those approved and the location.
(ii) EFMP family support services program, by installation:
(A) Type and number of EFMP family support services personnel.
(B) Number of families supported through the EFMP, including number of individualized SPs.
(C) Identified obstacles to the effective delivery of EFMP family support services, including military and non-military service providers.
(a)
(1) Potentially life-threatening conditions or chronic (duration of 6 months or longer) medical or physical conditions requiring follow-up care from a primary care manager (to include pediatricians) more than once a year or specialty care.
(2) Current and chronic (duration of 6 months or longer) mental health condition (such as bi-polar, conduct, major affective, or thought or personality disorders); inpatient or intensive (greater than one visit monthly for more than 6 months) outpatient mental health service within the last 5 years; or intensive mental health services required at the present time. This includes medical care from any provider, including a primary care manager.
(3) A diagnosis of asthma or other respiratory-related diagnosis with chronic recurring symptoms that involves one or more of the following:
(i) Scheduled use of inhaled or oral anti-inflammatory agents or bronchodilators.
(ii) History of emergency room use or clinic visits for acute asthma exacerbations or other respiratory-related diagnosis within the last year.
(iii) History of one or more hospitalizations for asthma, or other respiratory-related diagnosis within the past 5 years.
(4) A diagnosis of attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder that involves one or more of the following:
(i) Includes a co-morbid psychological diagnosis.
(ii) Requires multiple medications, psycho-pharmaceuticals (other than stimulants) or does not respond to normal doses of medication.
(iii) Requires management and treatment by mental health provider (
(iv) Requires the involvement of a specialty consultant, other than a primary care manager, more than twice a year on a chronic basis.
(v) Requires modifications of the educational curriculum or the use of behavioral management staff.
(5) A chronic condition that requires:
(i) Adaptive equipment (such as an apnea home monitor, home nebulizer, wheelchair, custom-fit splints/braces/orthotics (not over-the-counter), hearing aids, home oxygen therapy, home ventilator, etc.).
(ii) Assistive technology devices (such as communication devices) or services.
(iii) Environmental or architectural considerations (such as medically required limited numbers of steps, wheelchair accessibility, or housing modifications and air conditioning).
(b)
(a) Standards for authorizing overseas travel for family members with special needs of active duty Service members.
(1) Family member travel at government expense overseas may be denied when an active duty Service member has a family member with special medical needs and the services to meet those needs are unavailable in a duty location, as determined by the MHS based on acceptable U.S. healthcare standards. The Military Department will follow the procedures in this part regardless of the sponsor's location when processing a Service member with a family member with special needs.
(2) Active duty Service members may not be denied consideration for an essential (as defined by the military personnel assignment system) duty assignment overseas solely because they have children who are or may be eligible for EIS or special education services in accordance with 32 CFR part 57. They will receive the same consideration for travel at government expense to any duty location as families without such members.
(3) The failure to assign an active duty Service member to a pinpoint location overseas, as defined in § 75.3, is never a basis to deny EIS or special education to the active duty Service member's eligible infant, toddler, or child pursuant to 32 CFR part 57.
(4) The responsible Military Department may request reimbursement from the sending Military Department if failure to coordinate an assignment with the responsible Military Department results in one of the following situations:
(i) The assignment of the Service member to an overseas location where
(ii) The assignment causing the responsible Military Department to incur extraordinary expenses (
(5) The receiving Military Department may also require the sending Military Department to provide those services that are pursuant to the child's IFSP or IEP when there is failure to coordinate an assignment.
(b)
(1) Identify active duty Service members who have family members with special medical needs through completion of DD Form 2792, and with educational needs through DD Form 2792-1. The procedures require use of the information when considering family member travel.
(2) Update the status of family member(s) with special needs when conditions occur, change, or no longer exist, and when Service-specific policy requires.
(3) Coordinate the availability of medical and educational services.
(4) Maintain records on the effectiveness of the assignment process involving sponsors who have family members with special needs and on-assignment problems resulting from the inadequacy of the Military Services' procedures or failure to follow their procedures.
(c)
(1)
(i) Coordinate with medical activities to verify that required medical services are available, if the member has a dependent eligible for such services, before authorizing family member travel at government expense.
(ii) Coordinate with DoDEA and the medical activity responsible for supporting DoDEA to ensure that assignments are made to locations where EIS or special education services are available. DoDEA will determine whether the needs can be met in any location or whether an established pinpoint location is required.
(iii) Remove active duty Service members who have family members with special medical and educational needs from overseas orders if no suitable overseas assignment location can be found and there is no adverse impact on the military mission or on the active duty Service member's career.
(2)
(i) Coordinate and verify the availability of medical services essential to meet the needs of family members with special medical needs.
(ii) Coordinate with the MHS, school districts or EIS providers, EFMP family support services personnel, the school liaison officer and others, as appropriate, to determine the availability of EIS and special education services essential to meet the family member's special education needs.
(d)
(e)
(1) When the active duty Service member becomes aware that a family member may meet the criteria for special needs, as specified in § 75.6 of this part, the active duty Service member must:
(i) Notify the cognizant military medical authority using Service-specific guidance.
(ii) Have the DD Form 2792 completed by the appropriate medical provider.
(iii) Have the DD Form 2792-1 completed by the current EIS provider or current school providing special education to determine whether the family member (birth through 21 years of age, inclusive) is eligible for, or receiving, EIS or special education and related services.
(2) The active duty Service member must provide the cognizant military authority the completed DD Form 2792 and DD Form 2792-1, when appropriate.
(3) The active duty Service member must provide the information required to complete the DD Form 2792 and, when appropriate, the DD Form 2792-1. An active duty Service member who fails or refuses to provide the required information for a family member for whom the Service member is a personal representative for health information in accordance with Public Law 104-191, “Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPPA)”, or who knowingly provides false information about any dependent, may be subject to disciplinary actions for such offense.
(i) Such disciplinary actions would be in accordance with Article 92 (failure to obey a lawful order or regulation or dereliction of duty) or Article 107 (false official statement), in violation of 10 U.S.C. chapter 47 (also known and referred to in this part as “The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)”).
(ii) In addition to UCMJ disciplinary action, the active duty Service member may also be subject to administrative sanctions, including denial of command sponsorship.
(a)
(b)
(2) The civilian employee or selectee will be given comprehensive medical, dental, and educational information about the overseas community where the position is located to help the employee make an informed choice about accepting the position.
(3) Refer to the Joint Travel Regulations (available at
(4) Civilian employees or selectees assigned to positions overseas are generally responsible for obtaining medical and dental services and paying for such services, except services provided pursuant to 32 CFR part 57. Their family members may have access to the MHS on a space-available, reimbursable basis only, except for services pursuant to 32 CFR part 57.
(i) The DoDEA and the Military Medical Department responsible for the provision of related services to support DoDEA at the duty station are required to evaluate school-aged children (ages 3 through 21 years, inclusive) eligible for enrollment in a DoDEA school on a space required basis and provide them with the special education and related services stipulated in their IEPs expeditiously and regardless of cost.
(ii) The Military Departments are required to provide infants and toddlers (from birth up to 3 years of age, inclusive) eligible for enrollment in a DoDEA school on a space required basis
(c)
(i) Provide information on the requirements of this part related to civilian employees or applicants for employment, including employee rights provided in § 75.8(a) of this part.
(ii) Provide information on the availability of medical and educational services, including a point of contact for the applicant to ask about specific special needs. This information must be contained in any document used for recruitment for overseas positions.
(iii) Include the following statements in recruitment information:
(A) If an employee brings a child to an overseas location and that child is entitled to attend a DoD school on a space-required basis in accordance with DoDEA Regulation 1342.13 (available at
(B) If an employee brings an infant or toddler (up to 3 years of age) to an overseas location, and that infant or toddler, but for the child's age, is entitled to attend the DoDEA on a space-required basis in accordance with DoDEA Regulation 1342.13, then the Military Department responsible for EIS will provide the infant or toddler with the required EIS in accordance with the eligibility criteria consistent with 32 CFR part 57.
(C) If an employee brings a family member to an overseas location who requires medical or dental care, then the employee will be responsible for obtaining and paying for such care. Access for civilian employees and their families to military medical and dental treatment facilities is on a space-available and reimbursable basis only.
(2) When the gaining human resources representatives process a civilian for an overseas position where family member travel is authorized at government expense, then they must ask the selectee to determine whether a family member has special needs, using the criteria provided in § 75.6 of this part. All selectees must be asked only after they have been notified of their selection in accordance with 29 U.S.C. 791 through 794d, and 29 CFR 1630.14. If the selectee indicates that a family member has special needs:
(i) The DoD civilian human resources representatives may not coerce or pressure the selectee to decline the job offer in light of that information.
(ii) The selectee may voluntarily forward to the civilian human resources representative completed DD Forms 2792 or 2792-1 for each family member with special needs to provide information on the availability of medical and educational services. DD Form 2792-1 must be submitted if the selectee intends to enroll his or her child in a school funded by the DoD or a school in which DoD is responsible for paying the tuition for a space-required family member.
(3) The gaining human resources activity will coordinate with the appropriate military medical and educational personnel on availability of services and inform the selectee in writing of the availability of medical, educational, and early intervention resources and services to allow the civilian employee to make an informed choice whether to accept the position. The notice will include:
(i) Comprehensive medical, dental, and educational information on the overseas community where the position is located.
(ii) A description of the local DoDEA facility and programs, specifying the programs for children with special education needs.
(iii) A description of the local EIS available for infants and toddlers with disabilities.
(iv) A statement indicating that the lack of EIS or special education resources (including related services assigned to the military medical departments) cannot serve as a basis for the denial of family travel at government expense and required services will be provided even if a local program is not currently established in accordance with 32 CFR part 57.
(d) Use of EFMP Family Support Services.
(1) Civilian employees may utilize EFMP family support services on a space available basis.
(a) EFMP Family Support. EFMP family support services and their personnel:
(1) Provide information and referral to military families with special needs.
(2) Provide assistance, including non-clinical case management to families of active duty Service members (such as the development and maintenance of an individualized SP). The SP will include:
(i) Identification of the family's current needs, the services they receive, and the support they require.
(ii) Documentation of the support provided to the family and follow-on contacts, including case notes.
(3) Refer families who have serious or complicated medical issues to the MHS to request medical case management.
(4) Conduct ongoing outreach with military units, individuals and their families, other service providers, and military and community organizations to promote an understanding of the EFMP and to encourage families with special needs to seek support services when needed.
(5) Serve as the point of contact with leadership in identifying and addressing the community support requirements of military families with special needs.
(6) Collaborate with military, federal, State, and local agencies to share and exchange information in developing a comprehensive program.
(7) Provide assistance before, during and after relocation, including coordination of services with the gaining installation's EFMP family support services program.
(8) Educate and provide assistance to Service members and their families about EFMP family support services, the enrollment and assignment coordination process, resources, and other topics as appropriate.
(b)
The OSN:
(a) Develops and implements policies on the:
(1) Provision of support for military families with special needs.
(2) Identification and documentation of family members' special medical or educational needs.
(3) Coordination of military assignments when the Service member has a family member with special needs.
(4) Provision of EIS and special education services to eligible DoD family members in accordance with 32 CFR part 57.
(b) Develops implementing guidance and forms necessary for the operation of the EFMP in accordance with this part.
(c) Provides oversight for the:
(1) Implementation of this part.
(2) Availability and accessibility of programs provided by the Military Services and federal, State and local non-governmental agencies and identifies any gaps in DoD services available to military family members with special needs.
(3) Provision of EIS and special education services to eligible DoD
(d) Collaborates with the Office of the ASD(HA) on medical services regarding family members with special medical needs.
(e) Develops and implements a Web-based data management system to support the EFMP with the Military Departments.
Department of the Army (DA), Department of Defense (DoD).
Proposed rule.
The DA proposes to revise its regulation concerning the carrying of firearms and use of force for law enforcement, security, counterintelligence, and protective services on DoD installations worldwide. It establishes uniform policy for the use of force by law enforcement and security personnel.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by: February 9, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by 32 CFR part 632, Docket No. USA-2015-0013 and or RIN 0702-AA68, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. John Hargitt, (703) 424-3309.
This rulemaking proposes to revise a current Army regulation which was published in the
The proposed revisions add to the CFR the following authorities.
10 U.S.C. 807—Article 7, Apprehension. This article specifically covers the authority for apprehension or taking of a person into custody.
50 U.S.C. Section 797, Penalty for violation of security regulations and orders. This section covers fines and penalties that a person is subject to if they willfully violate a defense property security regulation that has been promulgated or approved by the Secretary of Defense or by a military commander designated by the Secretary of Defense or by a military officer, or a civilian officer or employee of the Department of Defense, holding a senior Department of Defense director position designated by the Secretary of Defense for the protection or security of Department of Defense property.
18 U.S.C. Section 3261, Criminal offenses committed by certain members of the Armed Forces and by persons employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces outside the United States. Whoever engages in conduct outside the United States that would constitute an offense punishable by imprisonment if the conduct had been engaged in within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States while employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces outside the United States; or while a member of the Armed Forces subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
These revisions do not propose significant changes to the policy and applicability sections of the current rule. The use of force section has been updated to ensure that the level of force is reasonable in intensity, duration and magnitude and, based upon the level of effort required to counter a threat. There is no requirement to delay force or sequentially increase the level of force to resolve a situation or threat. DoD personnel will warn persons and give the opportunity to withdraw or cease threatening actions when the situation or circumstances permit. Additionally, this proposed rule updates the levels of force to include less-lethal force and presentation of deadly force.
The revisions to the deadly force section state that personnel will not be permitted to perform law enforcement or security duties requiring the use of weapons until they have received instruction on applicable regulations for the use of deadly force. Additionally, it requires personnel receive annual refresher training to maintain familiarity with restrictions on the use of deadly force. Deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity and as a last resort when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.
The revisions also propose a new less-lethal force section and updates additional options available to law enforcement and correctional or security guards. The current rule only defines the chemical aerosol irritant projectors and MP clubs. The updated section includes the launched electrode stun device (LESD), oleoresin capsicum spray (M39 Individual Riot Control Agent Dispenser (IRCAD)) and the expandable or straight baton. Department of the Army personnel may employ less-lethal force with the reasonable amount of force necessary to detain or effect a lawful arrest or apprehension of a resisting subject, or to otherwise accomplish the lawful performance of assigned duties. This section also discusses required training and performance measures to subdue a subject.
This proposed rule will not have a monetary effect upon the public since it only facilitates information sharing between authorized law enforcement agencies to enhance protection of personnel and resources critical to DoD mission assurance. These efforts allow
This proposed rule is part of DoD's retrospective plan, completed in August 2011, under Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” DoD's full plan and updates can be accessed at:
The Department of the Army has determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply because the proposed rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
The Department of the Army has determined that the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not apply because the rule does not include a mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local or tribal governments in the aggregate, or the private sector, of $100 million or more.
The Department of the Army has determined that the National Environmental Policy Act does not apply because the proposed rule does not have an adverse impact on the environment.
The Department of the Army has determined that the Paperwork Reduction Act doesn't apply. There is no additional burden for collection of information from the public or the addition of additional government forms associated with this rulemaking. Information collected to support this proposed rule is that information normally collected in the performance of law and order across the United States. Procedures and business processes outlined in this rule provide uniform policy concerning firearms, procedures for use of force, deadly force and less-lethal force, reporting efforts including the reduction of information collection burdens on the public and the improvement of law enforcement service delivery while maintaining privacy, confidentiality and information systems protections.
The Department of the Army has determined that Executive Order 12630 does not apply because the proposed rule does not impair private property rights.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distribute impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action,” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the proposed rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The Department of the Army has determined that according to the criteria defined in Executive Order 13045. This proposed rule does not apply since it does not implement or require actions impacting environmental health or safety risks to children.
The Department of the Army has determined that according to the criteria defined in Executive Order 13132 this proposed rule does not apply because it will not have a substantial effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government.
Deadly force, Expandable or straight baton, Firearms policy, Jurisdiction and authority, Launched electrode stun device, Less-lethal force, Oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray, Procedures for use of force.
For reasons stated in the preamble the Department of the Army proposes to revise 32 CFR part 632 to read as follows:
10 U.S.C. 807; 50 U.S.C. 797; 18 U.S.C. 3261.
This part prescribes policies and procedures for authorizing, carrying, and using firearms in connection with law enforcement, security, counterintelligence, and protective service duties. It establishes uniform policy for the use of force by law enforcement and security personnel.
This part applies to the active Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, the Department of the Army civilian police and security guard activities, contracted or contractor security force operations and activities, and the Army National Guard only when called or ordered to active duty in a Federal status under the provisions of the title 10, United States Code. It applies to contracted or contractor security force operations and activities when those forces operate under Federal jurisdiction and are not subject to State or host nation law. The provisions of this part do not apply to military personnel engaged in military operations subject to rules of engagement or to Department of Defense personnel in an overseas location not under the authority of, or subject to, the control of a U.S. military commander. Portions of this regulation that proscribe specific conduct are punitive, and violations of these provisions may subject offenders to nonjudical or
(a) DA personnel engaged in law enforcement, law and order, security, or counterintelligence investigations, including Army civilian police and security guards, both DA employee and contractor, who are authorized to be armed under this part will be appropriately armed and have the inherent right to self-defense.
(b) Authorization to carry a firearm includes the authority for the firearm to be loaded with ammunition. A firearm will be considered loaded when a magazine containing ammunition is placed in the firearm and a round of ammunition is placed in the chamber of the firearm.
(c) Arming of DA personnel will be limited and controlled. Qualified personnel engaged in the activities described in § 632.3(a) will be armed when required for assigned duties and there is a reasonable expectation that installations, property, or lives will be jeopardized if those personnel are not armed. The decision to arm DA personnel will be made after considering the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of the arms. The overriding factors to be considered in determining whether to arm DA personnel are the mission and threat. Arming those not regularly engaged in or directly supervising security or law enforcement activities will be limited to missions or threats and the immediate need to protect lives and DA assets.
(d) Screening pursuant to the Gun Control Act, to include the Lautenberg Amendment, will be accomplished without fail prior to authorizing any person to carry a firearm.
(e) DA personnel will only use the amount of force, including less-lethal force and deadly force, reasonably necessary to carry out their duties.
(a) DA military and civilian personnel engaged in law enforcement or security duties will be highly trained and proficient in both the understanding and the application of the use of force. In such cases where the use of force is warranted, DA personnel will use the necessary and reasonable amount of force needed to reach their objective. Only as a last resort will deadly force be used and only as described in this part.
(b) When the use of force is required, less-lethal force may be used to control a situation, provide defense of DoD forces, provide defense of non-DoD persons in the vicinity if directly related to the assigned mission, or in defense of the protected property, when doing so is reasonable under the circumstances. The use of force must be reasonable in intensity, duration, and magnitude, based upon the totality of the circumstances to counter a threat. There is no requirement to delay force or sequentially increase force to resolve a situation or threat. DoD personnel will warn persons and give the opportunity to withdraw or cease threatening actions when the situation or circumstances permit. After consultation with the servicing judge advocate or legal advisor, conduct the appropriate level of inquiry in accordance with AR 15-6 for all incidents involving law enforcement personnel's application of physical force in the line of duty. The completed inquiry will be filed as an enclosure within the Law Enforcement Report (LER).
(c) Commanders are mandated to augment firearms with DoD- or DA-approved nonlethal weapons and devices for performing law enforcement and security duties. For the purpose of this part (in accordance with DoDD 5210.56), and in the context of use of force, the term less-lethal force is used as there is no guarantee that non-lethal weapons (NLWs) will not cause severe injury or death. Less-lethal force can cause severe injury or death. DA personnel using NLW, as well as the party against which the tactic is used, will receive appropriate medical care if injured as a result of the use of less-lethal force.
(d) In evaluating the degree of force required for a specific situation, the following options will be considered. There is no need to proceed sequentially to increase force to resolve a situation or threat. Suggested methods of de-escalation of force to try should the circumstances permit (subject to host nation or local restrictions) are:
(1) Verbal persuasion.
(2) Unarmed defense techniques.
(3) Less-lethal weapons and/or devices (for example, oleoresin capsicum spray, launched electrode stun device, and baton).
(4) Military working dog (if available).
(5) Presentation of deadly force capability.
(6) Deadly force.
(a) Principles defined in this part on the use of deadly force with firearms will be applied equally to personnel using a weapon or equipment which, when properly employed in their intended use, would produce deadly force.
(b) The Secretary of the Army, Army commanders, or their designees may impose further restrictions on the use of deadly force if deemed necessary in their judgment and if such restrictions would not unduly compromise the national security interests of the United States.
(c) Personnel will not be permitted to perform law enforcement or security duties requiring the use of weapons until they have received instruction on applicable regulations for the use of deadly force in the performance of such duties. Additionally, annual refresher training will be given to all personnel assigned to those duties to ensure that they continue to be thoroughly familiar with all restrictions on the use of deadly force.
(d) Personnel carrying weapons for personal protection will have the necessary training on deadly force commensurate with that prescribed by this part.
(e) For contract security forces, the applicable contract will specify that the use of deadly force criteria will be established consistent with this part and local law.
(f) Deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity and as a last resort when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. Deadly force is justified under one or more of the following circumstances:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(g) Additional requirements for the use of firearms.
(1) When the situation permits, an order of “halt” will be given.
(2) Warning shots are prohibited.
(3) When a firearm is discharged, it will be fired with the intent of rendering the person(s) at whom it is discharged incapable of continuing the activity or course of behavior prompting the individual to shoot.
(4) Shots will be fired only with due regard for the safety of innocent bystanders.
(5) In case of holstered weapons, a weapon should only be removed from the holster when a potential need to use deadly force is reasonably anticipated or display of the weapon may avoid the need to use deadly force.
(h) Commanders of ACOMs, ASCCs, and DRUs may establish additional considerations in implementing procedures over the use of firearms.
(a) DoDD 3000.03E establishes DoD policy for the development and employment of NLWs. DA personnel (Army Law Enforcement Officer (ALEO), correctional or security guards) may employ less-lethal force with the reasonable amount of force necessary under the circumstances to detain or effect a lawful arrest or apprehension of a resisting subject, or to otherwise accomplish the lawful performance of assigned duties as described in § 632.6(c)(1) through (9). In the context of use of force, this part uses the term “less-lethal” force in lieu of “nonlethal” because there is no guarantee that properly employed “less-lethal” force will not inadvertently cause severe injury or death. Employment of less-lethal force may include the use of NLW.
(b) DA personnel using NLW during the employment of less-lethal force, as well as the party against which the tactic is used, will receive appropriate medical care if injured as a result of the NLW.
(c) Less-lethal force may be used under the following circumstances:
(1) Against persons assaulting other persons or themselves in order to prevent injury and/or continuation of the assault when lesser means of force have failed or are not considered a viable option by the ALEO.
(2) Against persons offering physical resistance to lawful arrest or apprehension when alternatives to the use of force have failed or are not considered a viable option by the ALEO.
(3) Against persons passively resisting a lawful, full-custody arrest or apprehension when alternatives to the use of force have failed or are not considered a viable option by the ALEO.
(4) To prevent the escape of a prisoner.
(5) To prevent the destruction of DoD property.
(6) Against animals menacing or attacking a person or themselves.
(7) To quell a major or minor disturbance within a correctional facility.
(8) To quell a riot or civil disobedience.
(9) To move or incapacitate an unruly prisoner.
(a) A launched electrode stun device (LESD) is an Electronic Control Device (ECD) that is used to temporarily incapacitate a non-compliant subject with an electrical stimulus delivered by direct contact or propelled probes. This electrical stimulus affects the sensory and motor functions of the central nervous system interrupting voluntary control of skeletal muscles and causing immediate, involuntary muscle contractions. The intended effect is neuromuscular incapacitation to ensure compliance by the non-compliant subject. An LESD is intended to minimize injury to law enforcement or security personnel, non-compliant subjects, and innocent bystanders. The timely and appropriate use of an LESD can de-escalate situations quickly and before conditions lead to increased escalation of force. Special Text (ST) 19-LESM, task 191-389-0057, outlines performance measures to subdue a subject using an LESD.
(b) An LESD is employed as a NLW capability and is not intended to replace firearms or lesser means of force. An LESD may be used when all of the following conditions are met:
(1) When one of the circumstances in § 632.6(c)(1) through (9) is present; and
(2) When lesser means of force options have been, or likely will be, ineffective; and
(3) When there is a reasonable expectation that it will be unsafe for law enforcement personnel to approach within physical contact range of the subject; and
(4) When law enforcement or security personnel determine that deadly force is not justified or not necessary.
(c) Before employing an LESD, law enforcement or security personnel must assess how effective it will be in their given situation. The decision to use an LESD will depend upon the totality of the circumstances, including but not limited to the level of resistance of the subject, the nature of the threat to the officer or others, the severity of the subject's suspected crime, and the overall hostility of the situation. After employing an LESD, law enforcement or security personnel must determine whether further employment is warranted based on the continuing presence of the conditions in paragraph § 632.7(b) and based on the totality of the circumstances described in this paragraph.
(d) An LESD is not a substitute for deadly force and should not be used in situations where deadly force is necessary.
(e) Prior to employing an LESD, law enforcement, correctional or security personnel will give a verbal warning and verbal commands to a resisting subject, when and if the situation permits. Verbal warnings and commands are not necessary if the threat to law enforcement personnel or to the safety of others dictates immediate action.
(f) The use of an LESD may eliminate the need for hands-on active countermeasures. Law enforcement, correctional or security personnel may utilize empty hand tactics prior to employing an LESD as the situation dictates. However, law enforcement, correctional, or security personnel are not required to attempt empty hand control tactics if they believe those
(g) Notwithstanding § 632.7(b), an LESD will not be used:
(1) When it is known that the subject has come into contact with flammable liquids or is in a flammable environment; or
(2) When the subject is in a position where falling may cause significant injury or death; or
(3) As a punitive measure to coerce an uncooperative subject; or
(4) To awaken an unconscious subject (
(h) Notwithstanding § 632.7(b), an LESD should not be used in the following circumstances unless absolutely necessary:
(1) On a subject operating a motor vehicle; or
(2) On a subject gripping a firearm; or
(3) On women known or suspected to be pregnant; or
(4) On persons perceived to be 60 years of age or older, or disabled; or
(5) On persons perceived to be children 14 years of age or younger.
(i)
(2) If requested by the subject, law enforcement, correctional or security personnel must ensure that medical treatment is provided after an LESD has been employed, regardless of the subject's apparent medical condition.
(3) If an LESD probes are lodged in the soft tissue areas near the eye, throat, ear, groin, or genitals, law enforcement, correctional or security personnel will summon medical personnel to the scene, or will transport the subject to the nearest medical facility to have the probes removed by medical personnel.
(4) During processing, the apprehending law enforcement personnel will inform the detention personnel that they employed an LESD against the subject. Law enforcement personnel will not transfer a subject to a detention center after employment of an LESD if the probes have not been removed, or if the subject has not received, requested or required medical care.
(a) The Army M39 Individual Riot Control Agent Dispenser (IRCAD) contains OC and is intended for law enforcement use in self-defense and for controlling rioters, prisoners, and/or non-compliant subjects. It is designed to provide a safe and effective way to subdue a subject without causing permanent injury. The M39 IRCAD contains enough OC or “pepper spray” for 15 one-second bursts. It has an operational range of 10 to 30 feet. ST 19-LESM, task 191-376-5108 and task 191-389-0037, outlines performance measures to subdue a subject with OC spray while in performance of law enforcement duties. Soldier Training Publication (STP) 19-31E1-SM, task 191-31E-0042 and 191-31E-1369, outline performance measures for use of OC spray while in a correctional facility.
(b)
(2) During transport, reassure the subject and monitor them for medical distress, coherence, and respiration.
(3) Seek immediate medical assistance upon any sign of medical distress.
(4) Seek medical assistance if the direct effects of the OC spray does not dissipate within an hour.
(a) The baton is used for law enforcement self-defense and for keeping rioters and/or non-compliant subjects out of arms reach. The baton may be employed in situations where the use of a firearm is not authorized or necessary, and when law enforcement, correctional or security personnel reasonably believe that a lower level of force will be ineffective or jeopardize the safety of the law enforcement personnel.
(b)
(c)
(a) The DES, Correctional Facility Commander or PM for each installation, in coordination with the senior/garrison commander and the staff judge advocate (SJA), may place further limitations on the use of an LESD, OC, and/or baton beyond what is provided in this part. The servicing SJA is critical in analyzing the particular installation's jurisdictional arrangement, and determining whether state law (for U.S. installations) or host nation law (for non-U.S. installations) impacts the use of LESD, OC and/or baton on the installation.
(b) After consultation with the servicing judge advocate or legal advisor, conduct the appropriate level of inquiry in accordance with AR 15-6 for all incidents involving law enforcement personnel's application of physical force in the line of duty. The completed inquiry will be filed as an enclosure within the Law Enforcement Report.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision submitted by the State of Minnesota on July 16, 2015. The purpose of this revision is to establish transportation conformity criteria and procedures related to interagency consultation, and enforceability of certain transportation related control and mitigation measures.
Comments must be received on or before January 11, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0563, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3. Fax: (312) 692-2450.
4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only
Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this
Michael Leslie, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-6680,
In the Rules section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the State plan submitted by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to implement and enforce the Emission Guidelines (EG) for existing sewage sludge incineration (SSI) units. Puerto Rico's plan is consistent with the EG promulgated by the EPA on March 21, 2011. Puerto Rico's plan establishes emission limits and other requirements for the purpose of reducing toxic air emissions and other air pollutants from existing SSI units throughout the Commonwealth. At the request of Puerto Rico, the EPA is proposing not to take action on a provision of its SSI plan allowing for affirmative defenses of Clean Air Act violations in the case of malfunctions. Puerto Rico submitted its plan to fulfill the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act.
Written comments must be received on or before January 11, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2015-0755 by one of the following methods:
•
• Email:
•
•
Anthony (Ted) Gardella (
The following table of contents describes the format for the
The EPA is proposing to approve Puerto Rico's State plan, submitted on July 30, 2014, for the control of air emissions from existing SSI units throughout the Commonwealth. Puerto Rico submitted its SSI plan to fulfill the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Puerto Rico State SSI plan adopts and implements the Emission Guidelines (EG) applicable to existing SSI units, and establishes emission limits and other requirements for SSI units constructed on or before October 14, 2010.
As explained below, Puerto Rico requested in its July 30, 2014 submittal, that the EPA not take any action on a provision of the Puerto Rico State SSI plan allowing for affirmative defenses of CAA violations in the case of malfunctions. Therefore, the EPA is not taking any proposed action on the affirmative defense provision portion of Puerto Rico's State SSI plan.
Puerto Rico is requesting that the EPA not take any action on a provision in Puerto Rico's State SSI plan that allows for an affirmative defense by an owner/operator of an SSI unit for violations of air emissions or other requirements of Puerto Rico's plan in the event of malfunction(s) of a covered SSI unit. With the exception of the affirmative defense provision in Puerto Rico's State SSI plan, the EPA's proposed approval, once finalized and effective, will make Puerto Rico's rules included in Puerto Rico's State SSI plan federally enforceable.
In an April 18, 2014 opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) vacated an affirmative defense in one of the EPA's Section 112 regulations.
Because of the April 2014 D.C. Circuit Court's vacatur referred to above, Puerto Rico, in its July 30, 2014 submittal letter to the EPA, requested that the EPA not take action on the affirmative defense provision included in Puerto Rico's State SSI plan submitted to the EPA for approval on July 30, 2014.
EPA has evaluated Puerto Rico's State SSI plan for consistency with the CAA, EPA guidelines and policy. The EPA has determined that Puerto Rico's State SSI plan meets all applicable requirements and therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve Puerto Rico's State plan to implement and enforce the EG applicable to existing SSI units, except that, as requested by Puerto Rico, the EPA is proposing not to take action on the affirmative defense provisions of Puerto Rico's SSI State plan for the reasons discussed above.
Puerto Rico's State plan regulates all the units designated by the EG for existing SSI units which commenced construction on or before October 14, 2010 and which are located at a wastewater treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. If the owner or operator of an SSI unit made changes after September 21, 2011, that meet the definition of modification (see Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, section 60.5250 (40 CFR 60.5250)), the SSI unit becomes subject to subpart LLLL (New Source Performance Standards for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units) of 40 CFR part 60, and the State plan no longer applies to that unit.
Section 111 of the CAA, “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources,” authorizes EPA to set air emissions standards for certain categories of sources. These standards are called New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). When a NSPS is promulgated for new sources, section 111(d) also requires that EPA publish an EG applicable to control the same pollutants from existing (or designated) facilities. States
Section 129 of the CAA requires EPA to establish performance standards and emission guidelines for various types of new and existing solid waste incineration units. Section 129(b)(2) requires States to submit to EPA for approval section 111(d)/129 plans that implement and enforce the promulgated EG. Section 129(b)(3) requires EPA to promulgate a Federal plan (FP) within two years from the date on which the EG, or when revision to the EG, is promulgated. The FP is applicable to affected facilities when the state has failed to receive EPA approval of the section 111(d)/129 plan. The FP remains in effect until the state submits and receives EPA approval of its section 111(d)/129 plan.
State plan submittals under CAA sections 111(d) and 129 must be consistent with the relevant EG, in this instance 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM, and the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart B and part 62, subpart A. Section 129 of the CAA regulates air pollutants that include organics (dioxins/furans), carbon monoxide, metals (cadmium, lead, and mercury), acid gases (hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides), particulate matter, and opacity (as appropriate).
A State SSI plan is a State plan, as described above, that controls air pollutant emissions from existing sewage sludge incinerators located at a wastewater treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge and that commenced construction on or before October 14, 2010. The applicable types of SSI units include fluidized bed and multiple hearth incinerators.
When the EPA developed the NSPS for SSI units, we simultaneously developed the EG to control air emissions from existing SSI units (see 76 FR 15371, March 21, 2011). Under section 129 of the CAA, the EG is not federally enforceable; therefore, section 129 of the CAA also requires states to submit to EPA for approval State plans that implement and enforce the EG. Under section 129 of the CAA, these State plans must be at least as protective as the EG, and they become federally enforceable upon approval by EPA.
The procedures for adopting and submitting State plans are located in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. If a state fails to have an approvable plan in place by March 21, 2013, the EPA is required to promulgate a federal plan to establish requirements for those sources not under an EPA-approved State plan. The procedures for EPA's approval and disapproval of State plans are located in 40 CFR part 62, subpart A. The EPA is proposing to approve Puerto Rico's State SSI plan, except, as discussed above, for the affirmative defense provisions, since its SSI plan is deemed at least as protective as the standards set in the EG. Puerto Rico has developed and submitted a State plan, as required by sections 111(d)/129 of the CAA, to gain federal approval to implement and enforce the EG for existing SSI units.
A section 111(d) State plan submittal must meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, sections 60.23 through 60.26, and the EG found at 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM (see 76 FR 15371, March 21, 2011). Subpart B contains the procedures for the adoption and submittal of State plans. This subpart addresses public participation, legal authority, emission standards and other emission limitations, compliance schedules, emission inventories, source surveillance, and compliance assurance and enforcement requirements.
EPA promulgated the EG at 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM on March 21, 2011. Subpart MMMM contains guidelines to the states for submittal of plans that address existing SSI units. In addition, subpart MMMM contains the technical requirements for existing SSI units located at a wastewater treatment plant designed to treat domestic sewage sludge and applies to SSI units that commenced construction on or before October 14, 2010. A state can address the SSI technical requirements by adopting its own regulation that includes all the applicable requirements of subpart MMMM or by adopting by reference subpart MMMM. The section 111(d) State plan is required to be submitted within one year of the EG promulgation date,
On July 30, 2014
Puerto Rico amended Rule 102, entitled “Definitions of the Regulation for the Control of Atmospheric Pollution (RCAP),” and incorporated Rule 405(d), entitled “Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units (SSI),” to include the requirements for implementing the SSI EG covered under Sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA, and codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM. Revisions to Puerto Rico's Rules became effective on July 13, 2014.
Section 60.5015 of the EG describes all of the required elements that must be included in a state's plan for SSI units. Puerto Rico's State SSI plan includes all of the required elements described in section 60.5015 of the EG, as summarized herein:
(1) A demonstration by the Attorney General of the Puerto Rico Department of Justice of the Commonwealth's legal authority to implement the sections 111(d) and 129 State SSI plan;
(2) State Rules 102 and 405(d) adopted into RCAP as the mechanism for implementing and enforcing the State SSI plan;
(3) An inventory of one known SSI facility, including one SSI unit, along with an inventory of estimated air pollutant emissions (see sections VI of Puerto Rico's State plan as well as the clarifying information submitted by Puerto Rico
(4) Emission limits, emission standards, operator training and qualification requirements, and operating limits that are as protective as the EG;
(5) Enforceable compliance schedules incorporated into Rule 405(d), as follows: if an owner of an affected SSI unit plans to achieve compliance more than one year following the effective date of state plan approval the owner must (1) submit a final control plan to Puerto Rico by September 21, 2014, and (2) achieve final compliance by March 21, 2016 (see section (d)(7) of Puerto Rico's State plan);
(6) Testing, monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the designated facilities;
(7) Records of the public hearing on the State SSI plan; and,
(8) Provisions for annual state progress reports to EPA on implementation of the State plan.
The EPA proposes to determine that Puerto Rico's State SSI plan for existing SSI units includes all the required State plan elements described in section 60.5015 of the EG.
The EPA reviewed Puerto Rico's State SSI plan for approval against the following criteria: 40 CFR 60.23 through 60.26, “Subpart B—Adoption and Submittal of State Plans for Designated Facilities;” and 40 CFR 60.5000 through 60.5250, “Subpart MMMM—Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units;” and 40 CFR 62, subpart A, “General Provisions” for “Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants.”
The EPA has determined that Puerto Rico's State SSI plan meets all the applicable approval criteria as discussed above and, therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve Puerto Rico's sections 111(d) and 129 State plan for existing sewage sludge incineration units. As explained above, at the request of Puerto Rico, the EPA is proposing to not take any action on the affirmative defense provisions in Puerto Rico's State SSI plan.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a 111(d)/129 plan submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 40 CFR 62.04. Thus, in reviewing 111(d)/129 plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The 111(d)/129 plan is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian Nation Land, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Aluminum, Fertilizers, Fluoride, Intergovernmental relations, Paper and paper products industry, Phosphate, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Sulfur acid plants, waste treatment and disposal.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule and notice of public meeting.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) rule that requires public water systems to collect occurrence data for contaminants that may be present in tap water but are not yet subject to EPA's drinking water standards set under SDWA. This rule, revised every five years as required by SDWA, benefits public health by providing EPA and other interested parties with scientifically valid data on the national occurrence of selected contaminants in drinking water, such as cyanotoxins associated with harmful algal blooms. This data set is one of the primary sources of information on occurrence, levels of exposure and population exposure the Agency uses to develop regulatory decisions for emerging contaminants in the public drinking water supply. This proposal identifies eleven analytical methods to support water system monitoring for a total of 30 chemical contaminants/groups, consisting of ten cyanotoxins/groups; two metals; eight pesticides plus one pesticide manufacturing byproduct (hereinafter collectively referred to as “pesticides”); three brominated haloacetic acid groups of disinfection byproducts; three alcohols; and three semivolatile organic chemicals. EPA is also announcing a public webinar to discuss this proposal of the fourth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule.
Comments must be received on or before February 9, 2016. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before January 11, 2016. The public webinar will be held on January 13, 2016, from 1:00 p.m.. to 4:30 p.m., eastern time. Persons wishing to participate in the webinar must register
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0218, at
Brenda D. Parris, Standards and Risk Management Division (SRMD), Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) (MS 140), Environmental Protection Agency, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268; telephone number: (513) 569-7961; or email address:
Public water systems (PWSs) would be regulated by this proposed, fourth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4). PWSs are systems that provide water for human consumption through pipes, or other constructed conveyances, to at least 15 service connections or that regularly serve an average of at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year. Under this proposal, all large community and non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs) serving more than 10,000 people would be required to monitor. A community water system (CWS) means a PWS that has at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents. A NTNCWS means a PWS that is not a CWS and that regularly serves at least 25 of the same people over six months per year. A nationally representative sample of CWSs and NTNCWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people would also be required to monitor (see “Statistical Design and Sample Selection for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation” (USEPA, 2001b) for a description of the statistical approach for the nationally representative sample). As is generally the case for UCMR monitoring, transient non-community water systems (TNCWSs) (
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table summarizes the types of entities that EPA is aware could potentially be regulated by this action. If you are uncertain whether your entity is regulated by this action after carefully examining the definition of PWS found in §§ 141.2 and 141.3, and the applicability criteria found in § 141.40(a)(1) and (2) of Title 40 in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), please consult the contacts listed in the preceding
EPA is proposing a rule to require PWSs to analyze drinking water samples for unregulated contaminants that do not have health based standards set under SDWA and to report their results to EPA. This will be the fourth national monitoring effort under the UCMR program (see section II.D). The monitoring provides data to inform future regulatory actions to protect public health.
The public will benefit from information about whether or not unregulated contaminants are present in their drinking water. If contaminants are not found, consumer confidence in their drinking water will improve. If contaminants are found, illnesses may be avoided when subsequent actions, such as regulations, reduce or eliminate those contaminants.
As part of its responsibilities under SDWA, EPA implements section 1445(a)(2), Monitoring Program for Unregulated Contaminants. This section, as amended in 1996, requires that once every five years, beginning in August 1999, EPA issue a list of no more than 30 unregulated contaminants to be monitored by PWSs. SDWA requires that EPA enter the monitoring data into the Agency's publically available National Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD). EPA's UCMR program must ensure that systems serving a population larger than 10,000 people, as well as a nationally representative
Section 1445(a)(1)(A) of SDWA, as amended in 1996, requires that every person who is subject to any SDWA requirement establish and maintain such records, make such reports, conduct such monitoring and provide such information as the Administrator may reasonably require by regulation to assist the Administrator in establishing SDWA regulations. Pursuant to this provision, EPA can also require the monitoring of contaminants already subject to EPA's drinking water standards. EPA is using this authority as the basis for monitoring one of the chemical groups (Haloacetic Acids 5 (HAA5)) proposed under this rule. Sample collection and analysis for HAA5 can be done concurrent with the unregulated HAA monitoring described in section II.F (resulting in no substantive additional burden) and would allow EPA to better understand co-occurrence between regulated and unregulated disinfection byproducts.
Hereinafter, all 30 proposed contaminants/groups are collectively referred to as “contaminants.”
EPA estimates the total average national cost of this proposed action will be $25.3 million per year from 2017-2021. EPA has documented the assumptions and data sources used in the preparation of this estimate in the Information Collection Request (ICR) (USEPA, 2015a). EPA proposes using eleven analytical methods (eight EPA-developed analytical methods, one state-developed methodology and two alternate equivalent consensus organization-developed methods) to analyze samples for 30 UCMR 4 chemical contaminants. EPA's estimate of the analytical cost for the UCMR 4 contaminants and related indicators is $2,562 per sample set. EPA calculated these costs by summing the laboratory unit cost of each method. Exhibit 1 presents a breakdown of EPA estimated annual average national costs. Estimated PWS (
EPA expects that states would incur labor costs associated with voluntary assistance with UCMR 4 implementation. EPA estimated state costs using the relevant assumptions from the State Resource Model that was developed by the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) (ASDWA, 2013) to help states forecast resource needs. Model estimates were adjusted to account for actual levels of state participation under UCMR 3. State participation is voluntary; thus, the level of effort is expected to vary among states and would depend on their individual agreements with EPA.
EPA assumes that one-third of the systems would monitor during each of the three monitoring years from January 2018 through December 2020. The total estimated annual costs (labor and non-labor) would be incurred as follows:
Additional details regarding EPA's cost assumptions and estimates can be found in the “DRAFT Information Collection Request for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4)” (USEPA, 2015a) ICR Number 2192.07, which presents estimated cost and burden for the 2017-2019 period, consistent with the 3-year time frame for ICRs. Estimates of costs over the entire 5-year UCMR 4 sequence of 2017-2021 are attached as an appendix to the ICR. Copies of the ICR and its appendix may be obtained from the EPA public docket for this proposed rule, under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0218.
EPA published the list of contaminants for the first UCMR (UCMR 1) in the
EPA designed the Assessment Monitoring sampling approach (USEPA, 2001b) to ensure that sample results would yield a high level of confidence and a low margin of error. The design for a nationally representative sample of small systems called for the sample to be stratified by water source type (ground water (GW) or surface water (SW)), service size category and state (where each state is allocated a minimum of two systems in its state monitoring plan (SMP)).
This action proposes 30 contaminants for List 1, Assessment Monitoring from 2018-2020, with pre-monitoring activity in 2017 and post-monitoring activity in 2021. EPA developed this proposal after considering input from an EPA-state workgroup as well as other stakeholders.
Under the 1996 amendments to SDWA, Congress established a stepwise, risk-based approach for determining which contaminants would become subject to drinking water standards. Under the first step, EPA is required to publish, every five years, a list of contaminants that are not yet regulated but which are known or anticipated to occur in PWSs; this is the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL). Under the second step, EPA must require, every five years, monitoring of up to 30 unregulated contaminants to determine their occurrence in drinking water systems; this is the UCMR program. Under the third step, EPA is required to determine, every five years, whether or not at least five contaminants from the CCL warrant regulation, based in part on the UCMR occurrence information; this is known as a Regulatory Determination where the following questions are evaluated:
(1) Which contaminants may have an adverse effect on human health?
(2) Which contaminants are known to occur or are likely to occur in drinking water with a frequency and at levels of public health concern?
(3) Does regulation of such contaminants present a meaningful opportunity for risk reduction? Finally, SDWA requires EPA to issue national primary drinking water regulations (NPDWRs) for contaminants the Agency determines should be regulated.
The CCL process identifies contaminants that may require regulation, while the UCMR program helps provide the data necessary for the Regulatory Determination process outlined above. The data collected through the UCMR program are stored in the NCOD to facilitate analysis and review of contaminant occurrence, and support the Administrator's determination on whether regulation of a contaminant is in the public health interest, as required under SDWA section 1412(b)(1). UCMR results can be viewed by the public at:
This proposed action refines the existing UCMR, as reflected in the Code of Federal Regulations, to address the contaminants proposed for UCMR 4 monitoring and to reflect lessons learned through prior experience implementing UCMRs. EPA's proposed approach and rationale for changes are described in the following sections. Key aspects of the UCMR program that would remain the same, and are outside the scope of today's proposal, include direct implementation of the rule by EPA; the number and types of systems included in Assessment Monitoring for the majority of the proposed contaminants; and EPA funding for the small system testing. Proposed changes include the list of UCMR 4 contaminants, the analytical methods, monitoring time frame, sampling locations, the revised data elements outlined in Exhibit 2 and conforming and editorial changes, such as those necessary to remove requirements solely related to UCMR 3. A track-changes version of the rule language comparing UCMR 3 to the proposed changes for UCMR 4 is included in the public docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW 2015-0218) for this proposed rule (USEPA, 2015h).
In establishing the proposed list of contaminants for UCMR 4, EPA started with a priority set of contaminants from the draft fourth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 4), which includes 100 chemicals or chemical groups and 12 microbes (80 FR 6076, February 4, 2015 (USEPA, 2015b)). The evaluation and selection process that led to the draft CCL 4 carried forward the final list of CCL 3 contaminants (except for those with regulatory determinations), requested and evaluated contaminant nominations from the public and evaluated any new data from previous negative regulatory determinations for potential inclusion on CCL 4 (77 FR 27057, May 8, 2012 (USEPA, 2012b)).
EPA selected the proposed UCMR 4 contaminants using a stepwise prioritization process. The first step included identifying contaminants that: (1) Were not monitored under UCMR 2 or UCMR 3; (2) are anticipated to have significant occurrence nationally; and (3) are expected to have a completed, validated drinking water method in time for rule proposal. This resulted in a set of 45 draft CCL 4 contaminants and another set of related non-CCL analytes with potential health effects of concern that can be measured concurrently using the analytical methods for the CCL contaminants. Including related non-CCL analytes creates a more cost-effective design and reduces the likelihood of needing to include them in a subsequent UCMR.
The next step was to select contaminants associated with one or more of the following considerations: an available health assessment to facilitate regulatory determinations; high public concern; critical health endpoints (
During the final step, EPA considered workgroup and stakeholder input; looked at cost-effectiveness of the method/contaminant groups; considered implementation factors (
Further information on this prioritization process, as well as contaminant-specific information (source, use, production, release, persistence, mobility, health effects and occurrence), that EPA used to select the proposed analyte list, is contained in “UCMR 4 Candidate Contaminants—Information Compendium” (USEPA, 2015i). Copies of the Compendium may be obtained from the EPA public docket for this proposed rule, under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0218.
EPA invites comment on the proposed UCMR 4 contaminants and their associated analytical methods identified in Exhibit 3, as well as any other priority contaminants commenters wish to recommend. In particular, the Agency welcomes comments on the following contaminants that were considered by the workgroup, but not included in the proposed list because they were deemed a lower UCMR 4 priority than the contaminants identified in Exhibit 3:
EPA proposes (in § 141.40(a)) a new applicability date of December 31, 2015. That is, the determination of whether a PWS is required to monitor under UCMR 4 is based on the type of system (
The proposed rule identifies sampling and analysis for List 1 contaminants within the 2018 to 2020 time frame. Preparations prior to 2018 are expected to include coordination of laboratory approval, selection of representative small systems, development of SMPs and establishment of monitoring schedules. EPA anticipates that there is enough laboratory capacity to meet the needs of Assessment Monitoring. Exhibit 4 illustrates the major activities that we expect will take place in preparation for and during the implementation of UCMR 4.
To minimize the impact of the rule on small systems (those serving 10,000 or fewer people), EPA pays for the sample kit preparation, sample shipping fees and analysis costs for these systems. In addition, no small system would be required to monitor for both cyanotoxins and the 20 additional UCMR chemicals. Consistent with prior UCMRs, large systems (those serving more than 10,000 people) pay for all costs associated with their monitoring. A summary of the estimated number of systems subject to monitoring is shown in Exhibit 5.
The number of samples for SW, GWUDI and GW systems would generally be consistent with those during prior UCMR cycles, with the exceptions noted for the monitoring of cyanotoxins. Water systems would be required to collect samples during the monitoring time frame of March through November (excluding December, January and February). With the exception of cyanotoxin monitoring, sampling would take place every two months for SW and GWUDI systems (a total of four sampling events), and at 6-month intervals for GW systems (a total of two sampling events). For cyanotoxin monitoring, SW and GWUDI systems would collect samples twice a month for four consecutive months (total of eight sampling events). GW systems would be excluded from cyanotoxin monitoring.
The Assessment Monitoring sampling time frame would take place during the compressed period of March through November to better reflect the times of year when contaminants are more likely to occur in drinking water. Populations of cyanobacteria generally peak when water temperature is highest (Graham
Large system schedules (year and months of monitoring) would initially be determined by EPA in conjunction
Sample collection for the UCMR 4 contaminants would take place at the entry point to the distribution system (EPTDS), with the following exceptions/additions. Sampling for “total microcystins” (
For purposes of total microcystin sampling, temperature and pH measurement, and TOC and bromide sampling, EPA defines source water under UCMR as untreated water entering the water treatment plant (
EPA proposes that PWSs monitor for HAAs only in the distribution system. If the system's treatment plant/water source is subject to sampling requirements under § 141.622 (monitoring requirements for Stage 2 DBPR), the water systems must collect samples for the HAAs at the sampling locations identified under that rule (71 FR 388, January 4, 2006 (USEPA, 2006b)). If a treatment plant/water source is not subject to Stage 2 DBPR monitoring, then the water system must collect HAA distribution system samples at a location that represents the DSMRT. UCMR 4 HAA samples and HAA5 Stage 2 DBPR compliance monitoring samples may be collected by the PWS at the same time. However, in such cases, PWSs would be required to arrange for UCMR 4 HAA samples to be analyzed by a UCMR 4 approved laboratory using EPA Method 552.3 or 557 (compliance methods used for analysis of Stage 2 DBPR samples).
EPA is proposing a phased sample analysis approach for microcystins to reduce analytical costs (
This phased sample analysis approach for microcystins has the potential to achieve significant cost savings. A similar approach is not practical for cylindrospermopsin and anatoxin-a samples. Therefore, EPA proposes that cylindrospermopsin and anatoxin-a sampling be conducted simultaneously with the microcystins, twice a month for four consecutive months only at the EPTDS, and that the samples be analyzed using EPA Method 545.
As during past UCMRs and as described in § 141.35(c)(3), the proposed rule would allow large GW systems that have multiple EPTDSs, with prior approval, to sample at representative sampling locations rather than at each EPTDS. Representative sampling plans approved under prior UCMRs will be recognized as valid for UCMR 4 and these systems must submit a copy of documentation from their state or EPA that approves their alternative sampling plan. Any new GW representative monitoring plans must be submitted to be reviewed by the state or EPA within 120 days from publication of the final rule. Once approved, these representative EPTDS locations, along with previously approved EPTDS locations from prior UCMRs, must be loaded into the Safe Drinking Water
With the exception of the increased sample frequency, phased sample analysis for microcystins, revised sampling locations and the compressed monitoring schedule, the approach to UCMR 4 Assessment Monitoring remains consistent with that established for UCMR 3.
EPA invites comments regarding the cyanotoxin monitoring approach and the usefulness of collecting temperature and pH data (concurrently with the ELISA sample) at the source water intake, as well as designating source water type (
Finally, EPA recognizes the trade-off between PWS burden and occurrence-data representativeness, and has attempted to strike a reasonable balance in selecting the affected PWSs and establishing the monitoring frequency. The Agency welcomes comment on this particular point, including input regarding the appropriateness of collecting occurrence data from fewer PWSs. This could include employing the Screening Survey approach used in UCMR 3 or an alternative design. EPA requests that commenters suggesting alternatives describe how their proposed approach would be nationally representative of the frequency and level of contaminant occurrence.
EPA proposes the following changes to the reporting requirements listed in Table 1 of § 141.35(e) to account for the UCMR 4 contaminants being proposed and the associated indicators. Additionally, EPA proposes to collect quality control information related to sample analysis. This information would further ensure that methods are followed as written, and would provide continuous quality assurance of data reported. EPA collected this information for small systems in previous UCMRs and found that doing so helps ensure that laboratories consistently follow the methods.
• Add Public Water System Name. New data element to be assigned once by the PWS.
• Add Public Water System Facility Name. New data element to be assigned once by the PWS for every facility identification code.
• Add Public Water System Facility Type. New data element to be assigned once by the PWS for every facility.
• Update Sampling Point Identification Code. Added “source water” as an example of applicable sampling locations.
• Add Sampling Point Name. New data element to be assigned once by the PWS for every sampling point identification code.
• Update Sample Point Type Code. Add source water (SR) to account for brominated HAA indicators and microcystin monitoring at the intake to the treatment plant.
• Update Disinfectant Type. Adding the following primary disinfectant/oxidation practices: Permanganate applied before SR sample location (PEMB) and after (PEMA), hydrogen peroxide applied before SR sample location (HPXB) and after (HPXA), and chlorine dioxide applied before SR sample location (CLDB) and after (CLDA).
• Add Treatment Information. New data element to capture treatment associated with the water being sampled.
• Add Disinfectant Residual Type. New data element to capture disinfectant residual type information associated with the water being sampled.
• Add Extraction Batch Identification Code. New data element to allow evaluation of quality control elements associated with extraction of samples in methods where extraction is required.
• Add Extraction Date. New data element identifying the date of sample extraction.
• Add Analysis Batch Identification Code. New data element to allow evaluation of quality control elements associated with analyzing samples.
• Add Analysis Date. New data element identifying the start date of sample analysis.
• Update Sample Analysis Type. The following elements are proposed as quality assurance measures:
○ Continuing calibration check (CCC), an element that verifies the accuracy of method calibration;
○ Internal standard (IS), an element that measures the relative response of contaminants;
○ Laboratory fortified blank (LFB), an element that verifies method performance in the absence of a sample matrix;
○ Laboratory reagent blank (LRB), an element that verifies the absence of interferences in the reagents and equipment;
○ Quality control sample (QCS), an element that verifies the accuracy of the calibration standards;
○ Quality HAA (QH), HAA sample collected and submitted for quality control; and,
○ Surrogate standard (SUR), an element that assesses method performance for each extraction.
• Update Analytical Result—Value. Update to “Analytical Result—Measured Value.” The measured value is the analytical result for the contaminant.
• Add Additional Value. This element is used for quality control samples and is the amount of contaminant added to a QCS.
• Update Sample Event Code. Revise sample event codes to uniquely identify sampling events with specific codes for cyanotoxin and additional chemical monitoring.
Currently, § 141.40(a)(4)(ii)(F), requires EPA to randomly select a small percentage of small water systems to collect duplicate water samples for quality control purposes. Based on experience from previous UCMRs, this requirement did not provide significant useful information and EPA proposes to remove the requirement for the collection of duplicate samples from UCMR 4.
The analyte minimum reporting level (MRL) is a quantitation level designed to be an estimate of the reporting level that is achievable, with 95% confidence, by a capable analyst/laboratory at least 75% of the time, using the prescribed method. Demonstration of the ability to reliably make quality measurements at or below the MRL is intended to ensure that high quality results are being reported by participating laboratories. MRLs are generally established as low as is reasonable (and are typically lower than the current health reference levels and health advisories), so that the occurrence data reported to EPA will support sound decision making, including those cases where new information might lead to lower health reference levels. EPA established the proposed MRL for each analyte/method by obtaining data from several laboratories performing “lowest concentration minimum reporting level” (LCMRL) studies. For further information on the LCMRL and MRL
The proposed rule would require EPA approval for all laboratories conducting analyses for UCMR 4. EPA anticipates following the traditional Agency approach to approving UCMR laboratories, which would require laboratories seeking approval to: (1) Provide EPA with data that demonstrate a successful completion of an initial demonstration of capability (IDC) as outlined in each method; (2) verify successful performance at or below the MRLs as specified in this action; (3) provide information about laboratory operating procedures; and (4) successfully participate in an EPA proficiency testing (PT) program for the analytes of interest. Audits of laboratories may be conducted by EPA prior to and/or following approval. The “UCMR 4 Laboratory Approval Requirements and Information Document” (USEPA, 2015j) will provide guidance on the EPA laboratory approval program and the specific method acceptance criteria.
EPA may supply analytical reference standards for select analytes to participating/approved laboratories when reliable standards are not readily available through commercial sources.
The structure of the proposed UCMR 4 laboratory approval program is the same as that employed in previous UCMRs, and would provide an assessment of the ability of laboratories to perform analyses using the methods listed in § 141.40(a)(3), Table 1. The UCMR 4 laboratory approval process is designed to assess whether laboratories possess the required equipment and can meet laboratory-performance and data-reporting criteria described in this action. Laboratory participation in the UCMR laboratory approval program is voluntary. However, as in previous UCMRs and as proposed for UCMR 4, EPA would require PWSs to exclusively use laboratories that have been approved under the program. EPA expects to post a list of approved UCMR 4 laboratories to:
Laboratories interested in the UCMR 4 laboratory approval program would first email EPA at:
Laboratory applicants provide registration information that includes: laboratory name, mailing address, shipping address, contact name, phone number, email address and a list of the UCMR 4 methods for which the laboratory is seeking approval. This registration step provides EPA with the necessary contact information, and ensures that each laboratory receives a customized application package.
Laboratories that wish to participate complete and return a customized application package that includes the following: IDC data, including precision, accuracy and results of MRL studies; information regarding analytical equipment and other materials; proof of current drinking water laboratory certification (for select compliance monitoring methods); and example chromatograms for each method under review.
As a condition of receiving and maintaining approval, the laboratory is expected to confirm that it will post UCMR 4 monitoring results and quality control data that meet method criteria (on behalf of its PWS clients) to EPA's UCMR electronic data reporting system, SDWARS.
EPA will review the application packages and, if necessary, request follow-up information. Laboratories that successfully complete the application process become eligible to participate in the UCMR 4 PT program.
A PT sample is a synthetic sample containing a concentration of an analyte or mixture of analytes that is known to EPA, but unknown to the laboratory. To be approved, a laboratory is expected to meet specific acceptance criteria for the analysis of a UCMR 4 PT sample(s) for each analyte in each method, for which the laboratory is seeking approval. EPA intends to offer up to four opportunities for a laboratory to successfully analyze UCMR 4 PT samples. Up to three of these studies will be conducted prior to the publication of the final rule, and at least one study will be conducted after publication of the final rule. This allows laboratories to complete their portion of the laboratory approval process prior to publication of the final rule and receive their approval immediately following the publication of the final rule. A laboratory is expected to pass one of the PT studies for each analytical method for which it is requesting approval, and will not be required to pass a PT study for a method it already passed in a previous UCMR 4 PT study. EPA does not expect to conduct additional PT studies after the start of system monitoring; however, laboratory audits will likely be ongoing throughout UCMR 4 implementation. Initial laboratory approval is expected to be contingent on successful completion of a PT study. Continued laboratory approval is contingent on successful completion of the audit process and satisfactorily meeting all the other stated conditions.
After successfully completing the preceding steps 1 through 5, EPA expects to send each laboratory a letter listing the methods for which approval is pending (
The following methods are being incorporated by reference into this section for UCMR 4 monitoring. All approved material except for the Standard Method Online, is available for inspection electronically at
The following methods are from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
(i) EPA Method 150.1 “pH Electrometric, in Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,” 1983, EPA/600/4-79/020. Available on the Internet at
(ii) EPA Method 150.2 “pH, Continuous Monitoring (Electrometric), in Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,” 1983, EPA/600/4-79/020. Available on the Internet at
(iii) EPA Method 200.8 “Determination of Trace Elements in Waters and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma—Mass Spectrometry,” Revision 5.4, 1994. Available on the Internet at
(iv) EPA Method 300.0 “Determination of Inorganic Anions by Ion Chromatography Samples,” Revision 2.1, 1993. Available on the Internet at
(v) EPA Method 300.1 “Determination of Inorganic Anions in Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography,” Revision 1.0, 1997. Available on the Internet at
(vi) EPA Method 317.0 “Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide Disinfection By-Products in Drinking Water Using Ion Chromatography with the Addition of a Postcolumn Reagent for Trace Bromate Analysis,” Revision 2.0, 2001, EPA 815-B-01-001. Available on the Internet at
(vii) EPA Method 326.0 “Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide Disinfection By-Products in Drinking Water Using Ion Chromatography Incorporating the Addition of a Suppressor Acidified Postcolumn Reagent for Trace Bromate Analysis,” Revision 1.0, 2002, EPA 815-R-03-007. Available on the Internet at
(viii) EPA Method 415.3 “Determination of Total Organic Carbon and Specific UV Absorbance at 254 nm in Source Water and Drinking Water,” Revision 1.1, 2005, EPA/600/R-05/055. Available on the Internet at
(ix) EPA Method 415.3 “Determination of Total Organic Carbon and Specific UV Absorbance at 254 nm in Source Water and Drinking Water,” Revision 1.2, 2009, EPA/600/R-09/122.Available on the Internet at
(x) EPA Method 525.3 “Determination of Semivolatile Organic Chemicals in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),” Version 1.0, February 2012, EPA/600/R-12/010. Available on the Internet at
(xi) EPA Method 530 “Determination of Select Semivolatile Organic Chemicals in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),” Version 1.0, January 2015, EPA/600/R-14/442. Available on the Internet at
(xii) EPA Method 541 “Determination of 1-Butanol, 1,4-Dioxane, 2-Methoxyethanol and 2-Propen-1-ol in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry,” November 2015, EPA 815-R-15-011. Available on the Internet at
(xiii) EPA Method 544 “Determination of Microcystins and Nodularin in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS),” Version 1.0, February 2015, EPA/600/R-14/474. Available on the Internet at
(xiv) EPA Method 545 “Determination of Cylindrospermopsin and Anatoxin-a in Drinking Water by Liquid Chromatography Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/ESI-MS/MS),” April 2015, EPA 815-R-15-009. Available on the Internet at
(xv) EPA Method 552.3 “Determination of Haloacetic Acids and Dalapon in Drinking Water by Liquid-Liquid Microextraction, Derivatization,
(xvi) EPA Method 557 “Determination of Haloacetic Acids, Bromate, and Dalapon in Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (IC-ESI-MS/MS),” Version 1.0, September 2009, EPA 815-B-09-012. Available on the Internet at
The following methods are from “ASTM International”, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
(i) ASTM D1293-12 “Standard Test Methods for pH of Water.” Available for purchase on the Internet at
(ii) ASTM D5673-10 “Standard Test Method for Elements in Water by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry,” approved August 1, 2010. Available for purchase on the Internet at
(iii) ASTM D6581-12 “Standard Test Methods for Bromate, Bromide, Chlorate, and Chlorite in Drinking Water by Suppressed Ion Chromatography.” Available for purchase on the Internet at
The following methods are from “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater”, 21st edition (2005), American Public Health Association, 800 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001-3710.
(i) SM 2550 “Temperature.” This is a Standard Method for temperature measurements using a thermometer (mercury). The proposal includes measurement of temperature as a potential indicator for cyanotoxins.
(ii) SM 3125 “Metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry.” This is a Standard Method for the analysis of metals and metalloids in water by ICP-MS and is proposed for the analysis of germanium and manganese.
(iii) SM 4500-H+ B “pH Value in Water by Potentiometry Using a Standard Hydrogen Electrode.” This is a Standard Method for measuring pH of water samples using a meter, standard hydrogen electrode, and reference electrode.
(iv) SM 5310B “The Determination of Total Organic Carbon by High-Temperature Combustion Method.” This is a Standard Method for the analysis of TOC in water samples using a a conductivity detector or a nondispersive infrared detector.
(v) SM 5310C “Total organic carbon by Persulfate-UV or Heated-Persulfate Oxidation Method.” This is a Standard Method for the analysis of TOC in water samples using conductivity detector or a nondispersive infrared detector.
(vi) SM 5310D “Total organic carbon by Wet-Oxidation Method.” This is a Standard Method for the analysis of TOC in water samples using a conductivity detector or a nondispersive infrared detector.
The following methods are from “Standard Methods Online,” available for purchase on the Internet at
(i) SM 2550-10 “Temperature.” This is a Standard Method for temperature measurements using a thermometer (fluid filled or electronic).
(ii) SM 3125-09 “Metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry (Editorial revisions, 2011).” This is a Standard Method for the analysis of metals and metalloids in water by ICP-MS and is proposed to measure germanium and manganese.
(iii) SM 4500-H+ B-00 “pH Value in Water by Potentiometry Using a Standard Hydrogen Electrode.” This is a Standard Method for measuring pH in water samples using a meter, standard hydrogen electrode, and reference electrode.
(iv) SM 5310B-00 “The Determination of Total Organic Carbon by High-Temperature Combustion Method.” This is a Standard Method for the analysis of TOC in water samples using a conductivity detector or a nondispersive infrared detector.
(v) SM 5310C-00 “Total organic carbon by Persulfate-UV or Heated-Persulfate Oxidation Method.” This is a Standard Method for the analysis of TOC in water samples using a conductivity detector or a nondispersive infrared detector.
(vi) SM 5310D-00 “Total organic carbon by Wet-Oxidation Method.” This is a Standard Method for the analysis of TOC in water samples using a conductivity detector or a nondispersive infrared detector.
The following methodology is from Ohio EPA, Columbus, OH.
(i) ELISA SOP “Ohio EPA Total (Extracellular and Intracellular) Microcystins—ADDA by ELISA Analytical Methodology,” Version 2.0. January 2015, available on the Internet at
UCMR is a direct implementation rule (
SMPs include tabular listings of the systems that EPA selected and the proposed schedule for their monitoring. Initial SMPs also typically include instructions to states for revising and/or correcting system information in the SMPs, including modifying the sampling schedules for small systems. EPA expects to incorporate revisions from states, resolve any outstanding questions and return the final SMPs to each state.
EPA incorporates stakeholder involvement into each UCMR cycle. Specific to the development of UCMR 4, EPA held two public stakeholder meetings and is announcing a third in this proposal (see sections II.L and II.M). EPA held a meeting focused on drinking water methods for CCL contaminants on May 15, 2013, in Cincinnati, Ohio. Participants included representatives of state agencies, laboratories, PWSs, environmental organizations and drinking water associations. Meeting topics included an overview of the regulatory process (CCL, UCMR and Regulatory Determination) and drinking water methods under development, primarily for CCL contaminants (see USEPA, 2013 for presentation materials). EPA held a second stakeholder meeting on June 25, 2014, in Washington, DC. Attendees representing state agencies, tribes, laboratories, PWSs, environmental organizations and drinking water associations participated in the meeting via webinar and in person. Meeting topics included a status update on UCMR 3; UCMR 4 potential sampling design changes relative to UCMR 3; UCMR 4 candidate analytes and rationale; and the laboratory approval process (see USEPA, 2014 for meeting materials).
EPA will hold the third public stakeholder meeting (via webinar) on January 13, 2016. Topics will include the proposed UCMR 4 monitoring requirements, analyte selection and rationale, analytical methods, the laboratory approval process and ground water representative monitoring plans.
Those who wish to participate in the public webinar must register in advance no later than 5:00 p.m., eastern time on January 10, 2016,
Meeting materials are expected to be sent by email to all registered attendees prior to the public webinar. EPA will post the materials on the Agency's Web site for persons who are unable to attend the webinar. Please note, these materials could be posted after the webinar.
Executive Order 13045 does not apply to UCMR 4, however, EPA's Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children is applicable (See III.G. Executive Order 13045). By monitoring for unregulated contaminants that may pose health risks via drinking water, UCMR furthers the protection of public health for all citizens, including children. EPA considered children's health risks during the proposed rule development process for UCMR 4, including the decision-making process for prioritizing candidate contaminants, and included a representative from EPA's Office of Children's Health Protection as a participant on the UCMR 4 workgroup.
The objective of UCMR 4 is to collect nationally representative drinking water data on a set of unregulated contaminants. Wherever feasible, EPA collects occurrence data for contaminants at levels below current “reference concentrations” (
EPA did not identify any disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations in the process of developing the proposed rule for UCMR 4 (See III.J. Executive Order 12898). By seeking to identify unregulated contaminants that may pose health risks via drinking water from all PWSs, UCMR furthers the protection of public health for all citizens. EPA recognizes that unregulated contaminants in drinking water are of interest to all populations and structured the rulemaking process and implementation of the proposed UCMR 4 rule to allow for meaningful involvement and transparency. EPA organized public meetings/webinars to share information regarding the development of UCMR 4; coordinated with tribal governments; and convened a workgroup with representatives from the EPA Regions, EPA Program Offices, EPA's Office of Research and Development and several states.
EPA proposes to continue to collect U.S. Postal Service Zip Codes for each PWS's service area, as collected under UCMR 3, to support an assessment of whether or not minority, low-income and/or indigenous-population communities are uniquely impacted by particular drinking water contaminants. EPA solicits comment on additional actions the Agency could take to further address environmental justice within the UCMR program. EPA welcomes, for example, comments regarding sampling and/or modeling approaches, and the feasibility and utility of applying these approaches to determine disproportionate impacts.
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to OMB.
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2192.07. You can find a
The information that EPA proposes to collect under this rule fulfills the statutory requirements of section 1445(a)(2) of SDWA, as amended in 1996. The data will describe the source of the water, location and test results for samples taken from PWSs. The information collected will support Agency decisions as to whether or not to regulate particular contaminants under SDWA. Reporting is mandatory. The data are not subject to confidentiality protection.
The annual burden and cost estimates described in this section are based on the implementation assumptions described in section II.F. Respondents to UCMR 4 include 1,600 small PWSs (800 for cyanotoxin monitoring and a different set of 800 for monitoring the additional 20 chemicals), the ~4,292 large PWSs and the 56 states and primacy agencies (~5,948 total respondents). The frequency of response varies across respondents and years. System costs (particularly laboratory analytical costs) vary depending on the number of sampling locations. For cost estimates, EPA assumed that systems would conduct sampling evenly across March 2018 through November 2020, excluding December, January or February of each year, except for resampling purposes (
Small PWSs that are selected for UCMR 4 monitoring would sample an average of 6.7 times per PWS (
The annual average per-respondent burden hours and costs for the ICR period are: Small PWSs—6.2 hours, or $171, for labor; large PWSs—23.3 hours, or $682, for labor, and $6,047 for analytical costs; very large PWSs—46.5 hours, or $1,248, for labor, and $16,298 for analytical costs; and states—244.3 hours, or $11,598, for labor. Annual average burden and cost per respondent (including both systems and states) is estimated to be 23.4 hours, with a labor plus non-labor cost of $3,470 per respondent. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
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 EPA's rules in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, accuracy of the burden estimates or to provide suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, reference the public docket for this rule, which includes the ICR. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See the
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, EPA considered small entities to be PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people, because this is the system size specified in SDWA as requiring special consideration with respect to small system flexibility. As required by the RFA, EPA proposed using this alternative definition in the FR, (63 FR 7606, February 13, 1998 (USEPA, 1998b)), requested public comment, consulted with the Small Business Administration and finalized the alternative definition in the Consumer Confidence Reports rulemaking, (63 FR 44512, August 19, 1998 (USEPA, 1998a)). As stated in that Final Rule, the alternative definition would be applied to future drinking water rules, including this rule.
The evaluation of the overall impact on small systems, summarized in the preceding discussion, is further described as follows. EPA analyzed the impacts for privately-owned and publicly-owned water systems separately, due to the different economic characteristics of these ownership types, such as different rate structures and profit goals. However, for both publicly- and privately-owned systems, EPA used the “revenue test,” which compares annual system costs attributed to the rule to the system's annual revenues. EPA used median revenue data from the 2006 CWS Survey for public and private water systems. The revenue figures were updated to 2014 dollars, and to account for 3 percent inflation. EPA assumes that the distribution of the sample of participating small systems will reflect the proportions of publicly- and privately-owned systems in the national inventory. The estimated distribution of the representative sample, categorized by ownership type, source water and system size, is presented in Exhibit 6.
The basis for the proposed UCMR 4 RFA certification is as follows: For the 1,600 small water systems that would be affected, the average annual cost for complying with this rule represents no more than 0.8% of system revenues (the highest estimated percentage is for GW systems serving 500 or fewer people, at 0.8% of its median revenue). Exhibit 7 presents the yearly cost to small systems and to EPA for the small system sampling program, along with an illustration of system participation for each year of UCMR 4.
PWS costs are attributed to the labor required for reading about UCMR 4 requirements, monitoring, reporting and record keeping. The estimated average annual burden across the 5-year UCMR 4 implementation period of 2017-2021 is 2.8 hours at $103 per small system. Average annual cost, in all cases, is less than 0.8% of system revenues. By assuming all costs for laboratory analyses, shipping and quality control for small entities, EPA incurs the entirety of the non-labor costs associated with UCMR 4 small system monitoring, or 96% of total small system testing costs. Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 9 present the estimated economic impacts in the form of a revenue test for publicly- and privately-owned systems.
The Agency has determined that 1,600 small PWSs (for Assessment Monitoring), or approximately 4.2% of all small systems, would experience an impact of no more than 0.8% of revenues; the remainder of small systems would not be impacted.
Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA has attempted to reduce this impact by assuming all costs for analyses of the samples and for shipping the samples from small systems to laboratories contracted by EPA to analyze UCMR 4 samples (the cost of shipping is now included in the cost of each analytical method). EPA has set aside $2.0 million each year from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) with its authority to use SRF monies for the purposes of implementing this provision of SDWA. Thus, the costs to these small systems will be limited to the labor associated with collecting a sample and preparing it for shipping.
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. Although EPA has concluded that this action will have no significant net regulatory burden for directly regulated small entities, the Agency continues to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcomes comments on issues related to such impacts.
This action does not contain an annual unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
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.
Consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on the proposed rule from state and local officials.
This action will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. As described previously, this proposed rule requires monitoring by all large PWSs. Information in the SDWIS/Fed water system inventory indicates there are approximately 17 large tribal PWSs (ranging in size from 10,001 to 40,000 customers). EPA estimates the average annual cost to each of these large PWSs, over the 5-year rule period, to be $4,037. This cost is based on a labor component (associated with the collection of samples), and a non-labor component (associated with shipping and laboratory fees), and represents less than 1.2% of average revenue/sales for large PWSs. UCMR also requires monitoring by a nationally representative sample of small PWSs. EPA estimates that less than 2% of small tribal systems will be selected as a nationally representative sample for Assessment Monitoring. EPA estimates the average annual cost to small tribal systems over the 5-year rule period to be $103. Such cost is based on the labor associated with collecting a sample and preparing it for shipping
EPA consulted with tribal officials under the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in the process of developing this proposed rule to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. A summary of that consultation is provided in the electronic docket listed in the
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because EPA does not think the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk assessments are addressed in section II.N of the preamble.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action involves technical standards. EPA proposes to use methods developed by the Agency, three major voluntary consensus method organizations and the Ohio EPA to support UCMR 4 monitoring. The voluntary consensus method organizations are Standard Methods, Association of Analytical Communities International and ASTM International. EPA identified acceptable consensus method organization standards for the analysis of manganese and germanium. Additionally, EPA identified an Ohio EPA method for the analysis of total microcystins using ADDA by ELISA. EPA therefore proposes using a collection of analytical methods published by these parties for the UCMR 4 analytes. In addition, there are several consensus standards that are approved for compliance monitoring that will be available for use in the analysis of TOC and bromide, and for the measurement of temperature and pH. A summary of each method along with how the method specifically applies to UCMR 4 can be found in section II.J of the preamble.
All of these standards are reasonably available for public use. The Agency methods are free for download on EPA's Web site. The methods in the Standard Method 21st edition are consensus standards, available for purchase from the publisher, and are commonly used by the drinking water community. The methods in the Standard Method Online are consensus standards, available for purchase from the publisher's Web site, and are commonly used by the drinking water community. The methods from ASTM International are consensus standards, are free for download from the publisher's Web site, and are commonly used by the drinking water community. The Ohio EPA method is free for download on their Web site and is increasingly being used by the drinking water community.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking; the Agency specifically invites the public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and explain why such standards should be used in this rule.
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. The results of this evaluation are contained in section II.O of this preamble and an additional supporting document has been placed in the docket.
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Incorporation by reference, Indian-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 141 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * * Information that must be submitted using EPA's electronic data reporting system must be submitted through:
(2) * * * If you have received a letter from EPA or your State concerning your required monitoring and your system does not meet the applicability criteria for UCMR established in § 141.40(a)(1) or (2), or if a change occurs at your system that may affect your requirements under UCMR as defined in § 141.40(a)(3) through (5), you must mail or email a letter to EPA, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The letter must be from your PWS Official and must include your PWS Identification (PWSID) Code along with an explanation as to why the UCMR requirements are not applicable to your PWS, or have changed for your PWS, along with the appropriate contact information. * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * * You must provide your sampling location(s) and associate each source water location with its entry point location(s) by December 31, 2017, using EPA's electronic data reporting system. You must submit, verify or update the following information for each sampling location, or for each approved representative sampling location (as specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section regarding representative sampling locations): PWSID Code; PWS Name; PWS Facility Identification Code; PWS Facility Name; PWS Facility Type; Water Source Type; Sampling Point Identification Code; Sampling Point Name; and Sampling Point Type Code; (as defined in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this section).
(3) * * *
(i) * * * You must submit a copy of the existing alternate EPTDS sampling plan or your representative well proposal, as appropriate, [DATE 120 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE], as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(ii) * * * You must submit the following information for each proposed representative sampling location: PWSID Code; PWS Name; PWS Facility Identification Code; PWS Facility Name; PWS Facility Type; Sampling Point Identification Code; and Sampling Point Name (as defined in Table 1, paragraph (e) of this section). * * *
(5) * * *
(i)
(6)
(d) * * *
(2)
(e)
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1)
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(A)
(ii) * * *
(A)
(C)
(3)
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(B)
(C)
(ii)
(iii)
(5) * * *
(v)
(vi) * * * You must require your laboratory to submit these data electronically to the State and EPA using EPA's electronic data reporting system, accessible at
(c)
(1) The following methods are from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004.
(i) EPA Method 150.1 “pH Electrometric, in Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,” 1983, EPA/600/4-79/020. Available on the Internet at
(ii) EPA Method 150.2 “pH, Continuous Monitoring (Electrometric), in Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,” 1983, EPA/600/4-79/020. Available on the Internet at
(iii) EPA Method 200.8 “Determination of Trace Elements in Waters and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma—Mass Spectrometry,” Revision 5.4, 1994. Available on the Internet at
(iv) EPA Method 300.0 “Determination of Inorganic Anions by Ion Chromatography Samples,” Revision 2.1, 1993. Available on the Internet at
(v) EPA Method 300.1 “Determination of Inorganic Anions in Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography,” Revision 1.0, 1997. Available on the Internet at
(vi) EPA Method 317.0 “Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide Disinfection By-Products in Drinking Water Using Ion Chromatography with the Addition of a Postcolumn Reagent for Trace Bromate Analysis,” Revision 2.0, 2001, EPA 815-B-01-001. Available on the Internet at
(vii) EPA Method 326.0 “Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide Disinfection By-Products in Drinking Water Using Ion Chromatography Incorporating the Addition of a Suppressor Acidified Postcolumn Reagent for Trace Bromate Analysis,” Revision 1.0, 2002, EPA 815-R-03-007. Available on the Internet at
(viii) EPA Method 415.3 “Determination of Total Organic Carbon and Specific UV Absorbance at 254 nm in Source Water and Drinking Water,” Revision 1.1, 2005, EPA/600/R-05/055. Available on the Internet at
(ix) EPA Method 415.3 “Determination of Total Organic Carbon and Specific UV Absorbance at 254 nm in Source Water and Drinking Water,” Revision 1.2, 2009, EPA/600/R-09/122. Available on the Internet at
(x) EPA Method 525.3 “Determination of Semivolatile Organic Chemicals in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),” Version 1.0, February 2012, EPA/600/R-12/010. Available on the Internet at
(xi) EPA Method 530 “Determination of Select Semivolatile Organic Chemicals in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),” Version 1.0, January 2015, EPA/600/R-14/442. Available on the Internet at
(xii) EPA Method 541 “Determination of 1-Butanol, 1,4-Dioxane, 2-Methoxyethanol and 2-Propen-1-ol in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry,” November 2015, EPA 815-R-15-011. Available on the Internet at
(xiii) EPA Method 544 “Determination of Microcystins and Nodularin in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS),” Version 1.0, February 2015, EPA 600-R-14/474. Available on the Internet at
(xiv) EPA Method 545 “Determination of Cylindrospermopsin and Anatoxin-a in Drinking Water by Liquid Chromatography Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/ESI-MS/MS),” April 2015, EPA 815-R-15-009. Available on the Internet at
(xv) EPA Method 552.3 “Determination of Haloacetic Acids and Dalapon in Drinking Water by Liquid-Liquid Microextraction, Derivatization, and Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection,” Revision 1.0, July 2003, EPA 815-B-03-002. Available on the Internet at
(xvi) EPA Method 557 “Determination of Haloacetic Acids, Bromate, and Dalapon in Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (IC-ESI-MS/MS),” Version 1.0, September 2009, EPA 815-B-09-012. Available on the Internet at
(2) The following methods are from “ASTM International,” 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
(i) ASTM D1293-12 “Standard Test Methods for pH of Water.” Available for purchase on the Internet at
(ii) ASTM D5673-10 “Standard Test Method for Elements in Water by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry,” approved August 1, 2010. Available for purchase on the Internet at
(iii) ASTM D6581-12 “Standard Test Methods for Bromate, Bromide, Chlorate, and Chlorite in Drinking Water by Suppressed Ion Chromatography.” Available for purchase on the Internet at
(3) The following methods are from “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater,” 21st edition (2005), American Public Health Association, 800 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001-3710.
(i) SM 2550. “Temperature.”
(ii) SM 3125 “Metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry.”
(iii) SM 4500-H+ B “pH Value in Water by Potentiometry Using a Standard Hydrogen Electrode.”
(iv) SM 5310B “The Determination of Total Organic Carbon by High-Temperature Combustion Method.”
(v) SM 5310C “Total Organic Carbon by Persulfate-UV or Heated-Persulfate Oxidation Method.”
(vi) SM 5310D “Total Organic Carbon by Wet-Oxidation Method.”
(4) The following methods are from “Standard Methods Online.” Available for purchase on the Internet at
(i) SM 2550-10 “Temperature.”
(ii) SM 3125-09 “Metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry (Editorial revisions, 2011).”
(iii) SM 4500-H+ B-00 “pH Value in Water by Potentiometry Using a Standard Hydrogen Electrode.”
(iv) SM 5310B-00 “The Determination of Total Organic Carbon by High-Temperature Combustion Method.”
(v) SM 5310C-00 “Total Organic Carbon by Persulfate-UV or Heated-Persulfate Oxidation Method.”
(vi) SM 5310D-00 “Total Organic Carbon by Wet-Oxidation Method.”
(5) The following methodology is from Ohio EPA, Columbus, OH.
(i) ELISA SOP. “Ohio EPA Total (Extracellular and Intracellular) Microcystins—ADDA by ELISA Analytical Methodology,” Version 2.0, January 2015. Available on the Internet at
(ii) [Reserved]
Federal Communications Commission.
Petition for reconsideration.
In this document, a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking Proceeding by Tamar E. Finn, on behalf of U.S. TelePacific Corp.
Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before December 28, 2015. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before January 5, 2016.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
Michele Levy Berlove, Wireline
This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3035, released December 4, 2015. The full text of the Petition is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, or may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at
While the petition is styled a petition for clarification, at least one of the forms of relief it seeks may require a modification to the Commission's rules. As a result, the Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau has determined that the petition is more properly treated as a petition for reconsideration, for the purpose of seeking public input.
Number of Petitions Filed: 1.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
NMFS announces that the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Amendment 1 (CEBA 1) for Secretarial review. CEBA 1 would bring new ecosystem component species (collectively, “Shared EC Species”) into each of the Council's four fishery management plans (FMPs) through amendments to those FMPs, and would prohibit the future development of new directed commercial fisheries for Shared EC Species within the U.S. West Coast Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
Comments on CEBA 1 must be received on or before February 9, 2016.
You may submit comments on CEBA 1, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0123, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of CEBA 1 may be obtained from the Council Web site at
Yvonne deReynier, 206-526-6129,
Ocean fisheries in the EEZ off Washington, Oregon, and California are managed under the CPS, Groundfish, HMS, and Salmon FMPs. CEBA 1 includes the following amendments to the Council's FMPs: Amendment 15 to the CPS FMP, Amendment 25 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, Amendment 3 to the FMP for U.S. West Coast HMS, and Amendment 19 to the Pacific Coast Salmon FMP. All FMPs are implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801
The Council maintains a Fishery Ecosystem Plan, which includes an ecosystem initiative process for reviewing fisheries management issues that may affect multiple FMPs and for developing policies and regulations to address those issues under the authority of its FMPs. Under the ecosystem initiative process, the Council has reviewed trophic connections between the West Coast EEZ's unfished forage fish species and the EEZ's predator species managed under the MSA, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Through that review, the Council determined that it wanted to bring a suite of unfished and unmanaged forage fish species into its FMPs as ecosystem component (EC)
The Council has recommended including the following species as Shared EC Species in all four of its FMPs: Round herring (
CEBA 1, through its implementing FMP amendments and regulations, would prohibit the future development of fisheries for Shared EC Species within the U.S. West Coast EEZ until the Council has had an adequate opportunity to assess the scientific information relating to any proposed directed fishery and to consider potential impacts to existing fisheries, fishing communities, and the greater marine ecosystem. The Council deemed this action necessary to proactively protect unmanaged, unfished forage fish of the U.S. West Coast EEZ, in recognition of the importance of these forage fish to the species managed under the Council's FMPs and to the larger California Current Ecosystem. This action would not supersede tribal or state fishery management for these species.
NMFS welcomes comments on CEBA 1 and the proposed FMP amendments through the end of the comment period. CEBA 1 is available on the Council's Web site (
16 U.S.C. 1801
The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC; New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by January 11, 2016. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is a new collection for estimating erroneous payments due to meals claimed improperly by family day care home providers participating in the CACFP.
Written comments must be received on or before February 9, 2016.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be sent to: Veronica Uzoebo, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Veronica Uzoebo at 703-305-2576 or via email to
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information should be directed to Veronica Uzoebo at 703-305-2105.
The study relies on data from four sources: (1) State agencies that administer the program for FNS, (2) sponsors who manage CACFP on behalf of State agencies, (3) providers that operate family day care homes, and (4) parents with children enrolled in a participating provider's facility. State agencies will provide lists of sponsors including administrative information about them. Sponsors will prepare extant administrative records of participating providers. Providers and parents will provide primary data on meal services and child attendance. Providers will report meal service information via a smart phone application (app) or a reporting Web site; parents will report child attendance via text messaging or a reporting Web site. These data, in combination with extant administrative records collected from sponsors, will be used to estimate improper payments.
The study activities subject to this notice include collecting administrative records and meal serving information from 300 providers associated with 15 sponsors in two States.
For a period of one month, providers selected and assigned to the study group will report meal serving times in addition to their regular meal claims for reimbursement purposes; parents whose children are attending these providers' facilities will report the drop-off and pick-up times of their children on a daily basis. Providers selected and assigned to the control group will take part under the business-as-usual condition and will have no direct involvement in the study as their meal claims will be obtained directly from the sponsors.
Providers and parents in the study group will receive study materials with full details of what they will be asked to do. They will also receive contact information to contact the study team for additional questions.
Selected States agencies, sponsors and providers are required to support this federally funded study. Upon FNS's approval of the two States selected for this study, a purposive sample of 15 sponsors will be selected to represent sponsors of varying sizes in urban, suburban, and rural areas.
With each selected sponsor, 20 providers will be randomly selected and evenly assigned to a study or control group,
Parents can voluntarily participate in the study if their children attend participating providers' day care homes. Assuming an average of five families per provider, the study group will include an initial sample of 750 parents,
Each sponsor will provide four types of responses: (1) Attend a study orientation conference call including reading an advance letter and study materials before the call and any follow-up communication with the study team
Each day care home provider selected for the study will provide three types of responses: (1) Review an advance letter and study materials to provide requested child enrollment information, including communication about the study and the requested enrollment information; (2) report meal service information via the smart phone app or the reporting Web site (22 times); and (3) facilitate parent recruitment as needed.
Participating parents will provide two types of responses: (1) Review an advanced letter and study materials to decide whether to participate in the study, including communication with the study team about the study; and (2) if they agree to participate, report child attendance via text messages on their personal mobile phone or a reporting Web site (22 times).
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection for the Residue and Biomass Field Survey.
Comments on this notice must be received by February 9, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0251, Residue and Biomass Field Survey by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
R. Renee Picanso, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-4333. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS Clearance Officer, at (202) 690-2388 or at
The Residue and Biomass Field Survey will use as a sampling universe, fields in the South Fork watershed in central Iowa (Buckeye, IA). This study will investigate the effect crop residue removal has on soil and water quality. Measurements of crop residues will be compared with remotely sensed data to measure crop residue cover and soil tillage intensity for the entire watershed. The survey will be conducted in several phases. The farm operators will only be involved in three parts of the complete survey process. After obtaining the operators' permission, field enumerators will return several times during the growing season to measure and collect samples from the target areas. The farm operators will be contacted two other times to collect some additional data relating to cropping practices performed during the growing season.
NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),”
All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to seek approval to conduct a new information collection to gather data related to agricultural activity in two urbanized areas (Seattle, WA and Austin, TX). The data will be used to develop and refine procedures to be used to collect agricultural data in urbanized areas for the 2017 Census of Agriculture.
Comments on this notice must be received by February 9, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-NEW, by any of the following methods:
• Email:
• E-fax: (855) 838-6382.
• Mail: Mail any paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions to: David Hancock, NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5336 South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-2024.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Hand deliver to: David Hancock, NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5336 South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-2024.
R. Renee Picanso, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-2707. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS—OMB Clearance Officer, at (202) 690-2388 or at
The data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985 as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. This Notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),”
All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meetings.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed topics of discussion for public meetings of the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness (Committee).
The meetings will be held on January 20, 2016 from 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., and January 21, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST).
The meetings on January 20 and 21 will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Research Library (Room 1894), Washington, DC 20230.
Richard Boll, Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services, International Trade Administration. (Phone: (202) 482-1135 or Email:
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the Committee at any time before and after the meeting. Parties wishing to submit written comments for consideration by the Committee in advance of this meeting must send them to the Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services, 1401 Constitution Ave, NW., Room 11014, Washington, DC, 20230, or email to
For consideration during the meetings, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meetings, comments must be received no later
Notice; Request for Information (RFI).
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is seeking information on the “Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity” (the “Framework”).
As directed by Executive Order 13636, “Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity” (the “Executive Order”), the Framework consists of standards, methodologies, procedures, and processes that align policy, business, and technological approaches to address cyber risks. The Framework was released on February 12, 2014, after a year-long open process involving private and public sector organizations, including extensive industry input and public comments. In order to fulfill its responsibilities under the Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2014, NIST is committed to maintaining an inclusive approach, informed by the views of a wide array of individuals, organizations, and sectors.
In this RFI, NIST requests information about the variety of ways in which the Framework is being used to improve cybersecurity risk management, how best practices for using the Framework are being shared, the relative value of different parts of the Framework, the possible need for an update of the Framework, and options for the long-term governance of the Framework. This information is needed in order to carry out NIST's responsibilities under the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014 and the Executive Order.
Responses to this RFI—which will be posted at
All information provided will also assist in developing the agenda for a workshop on the Framework being planned by NIST for April 6 and 7, 2016, in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Specifics about the workshop will be announced at a later date.
Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on February 9, 2016.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to Diane Honeycutt, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. Online submissions in electronic form may be sent to
All comments received in response to this RFI will be posted at
For questions about this RFI contact: Diane Honeycutt, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899 or
NIST is authorized by the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014
NIST developed the Framework by using information collected through a Request for Information (RFI) that was published in the
In addition to extensive outreach and providing responses to inquiries, NIST has made information about the Cybersecurity Framework available on its Web site at
Since the Framework's release as version 1.0, NIST has continued to work on topics raised during the Framework's development but not integrated into version 1.0 of the Framework. These are listed in the NIST Roadmap for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity. Significant progress has been made in several of these areas, through programs like the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education and the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace.
Continuing its inclusive approach, in advance of any decision regarding possible updates of the Framework and Framework stewardship, NIST is interested in hearing from all stakeholders.
In this RFI, NIST seeks specific information about the variety of ways in which the Framework is being used and the relative value of different parts of the Framework, the possible need for an update of the Framework, how best practices for using the Framework are being shared and might be enhanced, and the long-term governance of Framework. This information is needed to carry out NIST's statutory responsibilities with the ultimate goal of assisting organizations as they seek to improve their cybersecurity risk management practices.
Comments containing references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies of the referenced materials. Do not include in comments or otherwise submit proprietary or confidential information, as all comments received in response to this RFI will be made available publicly at
Respondents may organize their submissions in response to this RFI using the template available at
While the Framework and associated outreach activities by NIST have focused on critical infrastructure, this RFI generally uses the broader term “organizations” in seeking information.
The following questions cover the major areas about which NIST seeks comment. They are not intended to limit the topics that may be addressed. Responses may include any topic believed to have implications for the voluntary use and subsequent improvement of the Framework, regardless of whether the topic is included in this document.
1. Describe your organization and its interest in the Framework.
2. Indicate whether you are responding as a Framework user/non-user, subject matter expert, or whether you represent multiple organizations that are or are not using the Framework.
3. If your organization uses the Framework, how do you use it? (
4. What has been your organization's experience utilizing specific portions of the Framework (
5. What portions of the Framework are most useful?
6. What portions of the Framework are least useful?
7. Has your organization's use of the Framework been limited in any way? If so, what is limiting your use of the Framework (
8. To what extent do you believe the Framework has helped reduce your cybersecurity risk? Please cite the metrics you use to track such reductions, if any.
9. What steps should be taken to “prevent duplication of regulatory processes and prevent conflict with or superseding of regulatory requirements, mandatory standards, and related processes” as required by the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014?
10. Should the Framework be updated? Why or why not?
11. What portions of the Framework (if any) should be changed or removed? What elements (if any) should be added to the Framework? Please be as specific as possible.
12. Are there additions, updates or changes to the Framework's references to cybersecurity standards, guidelines, and practices that should be considered for the update to the Framework?
13. Are there approaches undertaken by organizations—including those documented in sector-wide implementation guides—that could help other sectors or organizations if they were incorporated into the Framework?
14. Should developments made in the nine areas identified by NIST in its Framework-related “Roadmap”
15. What is the best way to update the Framework while minimizing disruption for those currently using the Framework?
16. Has information that has been shared by NIST or others affected your use the Framework? If so, please describe briefly what those resources are and what the effect has been on your use of the Framework. What resources, if any, have been most useful?
17. What, if anything, is inhibiting the sharing of best practices?
18. What steps could the U.S. government take to increase sharing of best practices?
19. What kind of program would help increase the likelihood that organizations would share information about their experiences, or the depth and breadth of information sharing (
20. What should be the private sector's involvement in the future governance of the Framework?
21. Should NIST consider transitioning some or even all of the
22. If so, what might be transitioned (
23. If so, to what kind of organization (
24. How might any potential transition affect those currently using the Framework? In the event of a transition, what steps might be taken to minimize or prevent disruption for those currently using the Framework?
25. What factors should be used to evaluate whether the transition partner (or partners) has the capacity to work closely and effectively with domestic and international organizations and governments, in light of the importance of aligning cybersecurity standards, guidelines, and practices within the United States and globally?
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 9, 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
Direct requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions to Walter Ikehara, (808) 725-5175 or
This request is for extension of a current information collection.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) manages fishing activities in the Rose Atoll Marine, Marianas Trench, and Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monuments. Regulations at 50 CFR part 665 require the owner and operator of a vessel used to non-commercially fish for, take, retain, or possess any management unit species in these monuments to hold a valid permit.
Regulations also require the owner and operator of a vessel that is chartered to fish recreationally for, take, retain, or possess, any management unit species in these monuments to hold a valid permit. The fishing vessel must be registered to the permit. The charter business must be established legally in the permit area where it will operate. Charter vessel clients are not required to have a permit.
The permit application collects basic information about the permit applicant, type of operation, vessel, and permit area. NMFS uses this information to determine permit eligibility. The information is important for understanding the nature of the fishery and provides a link to participants. It also aids in the enforcement of Fishery Ecosystem Plan measures.
Regulations also require the vessel operator to report a complete record of catch, effort, and other data on a NMFS logsheet. The vessel operator must record all requested information on the logsheet within 24 hours of the completion of each fishing day. The vessel operator also must sign, date, and submit the form to NMFS within 30 days of the end of each fishing trip.
NMFS collects information on paper permit applications and logsheets.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments and information.
NMFS has received an application from California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit project in Santa Cruz, California.
Comments and information must be received no later than January 11, 2016.
Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox address for providing email comments is
Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to
A copy of the application may be obtained by writing to the address specified above or visiting the internet at:
Shane Guan, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for a one-year authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment, provided that there is no potential for serious injury or mortality to result from the activity. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization.
On October 22, 2013, CALTRANS submitted a request to NMFS requesting an IHA for the possible harassment of small numbers of Pacific harbor seal (
The proposed project consists of a seismic retrofit of the existing Murray Street Bridge, which spans the Santa Cruz Small Craft Harbor and additional minor modifications to replace deficient bridge barriers (widening shoulders to standard widths and replacement and improvement of sidewalks and railings). The seismic retrofit project will provide the bridge with additional vertical support and resistance to lateral seismic forces by installing additional pilings and supplemental structural elements. In order to provide sufficient area for construction operations, some boats, Harbor facilities, and commercial businesses will require temporary relocation. Pile installation would include both impact and vibratory pile driving methods.
The nine-span bridge is supported by two abutments (identified as Abutments 1 and 10, located at the western and eastern ends of the bridge, respectively) and 8 “bents” (identified as Bents 2 through 9, located at 60-foot intervals between the abutments). The seismic retrofit project consists of the following basic in-water elements:
• Installation of concrete infill walls at Bents 2, 3, 4, and 9 to span the voids between the existing concrete support columns. The infill walls will also span the void between the existing and new columns at Bent 9.
• Installation of shear keys and seat extenders at Bents 2 through 9.
• Retrofit of foundations with 16-inch diameter CISS (cast-in-steel-shell) piles at Bent 9. These piles will extend to depths of approximately −55 feet to −90 feet at Bent 9.
• Retrofit of both outriggers and bents with 30-inch diameter CISS piles at Bents 6, 7, and 8 and 30-inch diameter CIDH piles at Bents 2, 3, 4, and 5. These piles will extend to depths of approximately −55 feet to −85 feet at Bent 5 and at approximately −85 feet to −120 feet at Bents 6-8.
• Installation of fenders to protect boats passing by the pier foundations, new pile caps at Bents, 5, 6, 7, and 8, and replacement of existing fender.
A summary of in-water piles to be removed and installed is listed in Table 1.
The Murray Street Bridge Retrofit project is currently planned to commence in the spring of 2016. Overall, the seismic retrofit work will be executed over a period of approximately 18 months, with in-water construction lasting for an approximate total 10-month period over two years with 5 months during the first year and 5 months during the second year. The in-water pile driving for the bridge piles would occur over a total of 30 days within the 10-month period. Due to in-water work timing restrictions to protect federally-listed salmonids, all in-water construction activities including pile removal/installation would occur between the period from July 1 to mid-November. This IHA would cover activities conducted March 1, 2016-February 28, 2017.
The project area includes waters within the Santa Cruz Small Craft Harbor and adjacent lands managed by the Santa Cruz Port District (see Figure 2 of the IHA application). The study area consists of the open waters, docks, and other potential haul-out features of the Harbor from the Harbor Launch Ramp area (including the fuel dock and Vessel Assist dock) to 500 feet upstream of the boundary of the Area of Impact (see Figure 2 of the IHA application).
The Murray Street Bridge Retrofit project is tentatively proposed for construction in five partially overlapping interchangeable phases. Generally, work will begin on the eastern side of the Harbor and progress to the western side.
Details of each activity for the Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit project are provided below.
(1)
(2)
(3)
The marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction most likely to occur in the proposed construction area include Pacific harbor seal (
General information on the marine mammal species found in Oregon coastal waters can be found in Caretta
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that the types of stressors associated with the specified activity (
When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based on available behavioral data, audiograms have been derived using auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data, Southall
• Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 25 kHz;
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and bottlenose whales): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
• High frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises, six species of river dolphins,
• Pinnipeds in Water: Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 75 Hz and 75 kHz, with the greatest sensitivity between approximately 700 Hz and 20 kHz.
As mentioned previously in this document, two marine mammal species (both are pinniped species) are likely to occur in the proposed seismic survey area.
Marine mammals exposed to high-intensity sound repeatedly or for prolonged periods can experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Kastak
Experiments on a bottlenose dolphin (
Chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-intensity, noise could cause masking at particular frequencies for marine mammals that utilize sound for vital biological functions (Clark
Masking occurs at the frequency band which the animals utilize. Since noise generated from in-water vibratory pile removal and driving is mostly
Unlike TS, masking can potentially impact the species at community, population, or even ecosystem levels, as well as individual levels. Masking affects both senders and receivers of the signals and could, in certain circumstances, have long-term chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent science suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels in the world's oceans have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than 3 times, in terms of SPL) from pre-industrial periods, and most of these increases are from distant shipping (Hildebrand 2009). All anthropogenic noise sources, such as those from vessel traffic and pile removal and driving, contribute to the elevated ambient noise levels, thus intensifying masking.
Finally, in addition to TS and masking, exposure of marine mammals to certain sounds could lead to behavioral disturbance (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. Some of these types of significant behavioral modifications include: Drastic change in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those thought to be causing beaked whale strandings 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 primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat are associated with elevated sound levels produced by vibratory pile removal and pile driving in the area. However, other potential impacts to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also possible.
With regard to fish as a prey source for cetaceans and pinnipeds, fish are known to hear and react to sounds and to use sound to communicate (Tavolga
The level of sound at which a fish will react or alter its behavior is usually well above the detection level. Fish have been found to react to sounds when the sound level increased to about 20 dB above the detection level of 120 dB (Ona 1988); however, the response threshold can depend on the time of year and the fish's physiological condition (Engas
During the coastal construction only a small fraction of the available habitat would be ensonified at any given time. Disturbance to fish species would be short-term and fish would return to their pre-disturbance behavior once the pile driving activity ceases. Thus, the proposed construction would have little, if any, impact on the abilities of marine mammals to feed in the area where construction work is planned.
Finally, the time of the proposed construction activity would avoid the spawning season of the ESA-listed salmonid species.
In order to issue an incidental take authorization 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 adverse 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.
For CALTRANS' proposed Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit project, CALTRANS worked with NMFS and proposed the following mitigation measures to minimize the potential impacts to marine mammals in the project vicinity. The primary purposes of these mitigation measures are to minimize sound levels from the activities, to monitor marine mammals within designated zones of influence (ZOI) corresponding to NMFS' current Level B harassment thresholds and, if marine mammals are detected within or approaching the exclusion zone, to initiate immediate shutdown or power down of the impact piling hammer, making it very unlikely potential injury or TTS to marine mammals would occur and ensuring that Level B behavioral harassment of marine mammals would be reduced to the lowest level practicable.
Work would occur only during daylight hours, when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted.
All known and potential artificial structures could be used by pinnipeds for haul‐out that occur in the construction work area would be removed, preferably to a near‐by location outside of the work area prior to construction. These structures could
Prior to in‐water construction, the approved monitor would conduct a workers training to instruct construction crews regarding the status and sensitivity of the target species in the area and the actions to be taken to avoid or minimize impacts in the event of a target species entering the in‐water work area.
A 10-m (33 ft) radius around the piling site should be established as an exclusion zone. The commencement of pile driving activities should be delayed if marine mammals are present within the exclusion zone. This exclusion zone is based on measured source level at 10 m by CALTRANS (2012) where the noise level reached 190 dB re 1 μPa from impact pile driving of a 30-in diameter steel pile in similar environment. There would be no exclusion zone for vibratory pile driving. Each day prior to the start of pile‐driving, the PSO would survey the exclusion zone for marine mammals. If a pinniped is detected, impact pile driving would be delayed until the marine pinniped(s) has moved beyond the exclusion zone, verified by visual confirmation or lack of visual sighting within the next 15 minutes of the last sighting, to assume that the animal has moved beyond the exclusion zone.
A 1,000-m (0.62-mi) radius around the piling site should be established as a preliminary zone of influence (ZOI) for impact pile driving. This distances is calculated based on practical spreading model where the edge of the ZOI correspond to received level falls to 160 dB re 1 μPa from impact pile driving. The preliminary ZOI would be adjusted based on a measurement of the distance to the 160 dB isopleth. CALTRANS stated that it would not be able to monitor beyond several km for marine mammal takes. Therefore, if underwater acoustic monitoring shows that the 120 dB isopleth for vibratory pile driving is beyond 1,000 m, CALTRANS would not use vibratory pile driving for this project. A summary of modeled exclusion zone and ZOI radii based on CALTRANS (2012) is listed in Table 3.
CALTRANS would implement “soft start” (or ramp up) to reduce potential startling behavioral responses from marine mammals. Soft start requires contractors to initiate noise from the vibratory hammer for 15 seconds at reduced energy followed by a 1-minute waiting period. The procedure would be repeated two additional times. Soft start for impact hammers requires contractors to provide an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets. Each day, CALTRANS would use the soft-start technique at the beginning of pile driving, or if pile driving has ceased for more than one hour.
CALTRANS shall implement shutdown measures if a marine mammal is sighted approaching the Level A exclusion zone. In-water construction activities shall be suspended until the marine mammal is sighted moving away from the exclusion zone, or if the animal is not sighted for 30 minutes after the shutdown.
In addition, CALTRANS shall implement shutdown measures if the number of any allotted marine mammal takes reaches the limit under the IHA (if issued), if such marine mammals are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B ZOI during in-water pile driving.
Furthermore, CALTRANS shall implant shutdown measures if any marine mammals not authorized under the IHA (if issued) are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B ZOI during in-water pile driving.
NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting 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:
• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals
• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned
• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:
(1) Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
(2) A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received levels of pile driving and pile removal or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
(3) A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to
(4) A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to received levels of pile driving, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
(5) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/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 applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) 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 ITAs 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. CALTRANS submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA application. It can be found at
Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or more of the following general goals:
(1) An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;
(2) An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are likely to be exposed to levels of pile driving that we associate with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, TTS, or PTS;
(3) An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond to stimuli expected to result in take and how anticipated adverse effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the following methods:
Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);
Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);
Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;
(4) An increased knowledge of the affected species; and
(5) An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain mitigation and monitoring measures.
During in-water pile driving, CALTRANS would employ NMFS-approved protected species observers (PSOs) to conduct marine mammal monitoring for its Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit project. The PSOs would observe and collect data on marine mammals in and around the project area for 30 minutes before, during, and after all pile removal and pile installation work. If a PSO observes a marine mammal approaching the exclusion zone, in-water impact pile driving would be ceased immediately. In addition, if a PSO observes a marine mammal within a ZOI that appears to be disturbed by the work activity, the PSO would notify the work crew to initiate shutdown measures.
Monitoring of marine mammals around the construction site shall be conducted using high-quality binoculars (
CALTRANS would also conduct hydroacoustic monitoring of its initial pile driving to establish exclusion zones and ZOIs based on acoustic measurements. CALTRANS would also submit the hydroacoustic monitoring plan for NMFS approval before the measurements are conducted. The size of these zones listed in Table 3 may be adjusted based on in situ acoustic measurements.
Data collection during marine mammal monitoring would consist of a count of all marine mammals by species, a description of behavior (if possible), location, direction of movement, type of construction that is occurring, time that pile replacement work begins and ends, any acoustic or visual disturbance, and time of the observation. Environmental conditions such as weather, visibility, temperature, tide level, current, and sea state would also be recorded.
CALTRANS would be required to submit a final monitoring report within 90 days after completion of the construction work or the expiration of the IHA (if issued), whichever comes earlier. This report would detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed. NMFS would have an opportunity to provide comments on the report, and if NMFS has comments, CALTRANS would address the comments and submit a final report to NMFS within 30 days.
In addition, NMFS would require CALTRANS to notify NMFS' Office of Protected Resources and NMFS' Stranding Network within 48 hours of sighting an injured or dead marine mammal in the vicinity of the construction site. CALTRANS shall provide NMFS with the species or description of the animal(s), the condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition, if the animal is dead), location, time of first discovery, observed behaviors (if alive), and photo or video (if available).
In the event that CALTRANS finds an injured or dead marine mammal that is not in the vicinity of the construction area, CALTRANS would report the same information as listed above to NMFS as soon as operationally feasible.
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].
As discussed above, in-water pile removal and pile driving (vibratory and impact) generate loud noises that could potentially harass marine mammals in the vicinity of CALTRANS's proposed Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit project.
As mentioned earlier in this document, currently NMFS uses 120 dB re 1 μPa and 160 dB re 1 μPa at the received levels for the onset of Level B harassment from non-impulse (vibratory pile driving and removal) and impulse sources (impact pile driving) underwater, respectively. Table 4 summarizes the current NMFS marine mammal take criteria.
Numbers of marine mammals that could be incidentally harassed are calculated by estimating the maximum number of marine mammal being present within a ZOI during active pile driving based on estimates of numbers of animals identified during the marine mammal surveys. Numbers of residential harbor seals are expected to be at a maximum during the season in which surveys were conducted (outside of breeding and molting seasons).
Pile driving (in‐water and on‐land) estimates are based on the maximum number of days that pile driving could potentially occur (installation of 42 permanent bridge; installation and removal of 120 temporary piles to support a construction trestle, if used; removal and reinstallation 35 boat berth piles, and removal of 4 existing bridge piles. In total, up to 49 days of pile driving and 15.5 days of pile removal are anticipated.
For the exposure estimate, it is conservatively assumed that the highest count of sea lions, harbor seals, and sea otters observed will be foraging within the ZOI and be exposed multiple times during the Project.
The calculation for estimated marine mammal takes is:
Numbers of animals in the proposed project area are based on CALTRANS marine mammal counts conducted in September and October, 2009. Estimates include the number of anticipated instances of Level B acoustical harassment during impact pile driving and vibratory pile removal. All estimates are conservative, as pile removal/driving would not be continuous during the work day. Additionally, the number of individual marine mammals taken is anticipated to be lower than the number of estimated instances, because we expect some individuals to be taken on multiple days. Using this approach, a summary of estimated instances of takes of marine mammals incidental to CALTRANS's Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit project are provided in Table 5.
Negligible impact is “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, this introductory discussion of our analyses applies to both species listed in Table 5, given that the anticipated effects of CALTRANS's Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit project on marine mammals are expected to be relatively similar in nature. There is no information about the nature or severity of the impacts, or the size, status, or structure of any species or stock that would lead to a different analysis for this activity, else
CALTRANS's proposed Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit project would involve vibratory pile removal and impact pile driving activities. Elevated underwater noises are expected to be generated as a result of these activities. The exclusion zone for Level A harassment is extremely small (10 m from the source), and with the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures described above, there would be no Level A take of marine mammals. For vibratory pile removal and pile driving, noise levels are not expected to reach the level that may cause TTS, injury (including PTS), or mortality to marine mammals.
Additionally, the sum of noise from CALTRANS's proposed Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit activities is confined to a limited area within the Santa Cruz Harbor; therefore, the noise generated is not expected to contribute to increased ocean ambient noise outside the Harbor. In addition, due to shallow water depths in the project area, underwater sound propagation of low-frequency sound (which is the major noise source from pile driving) is expected to be poor.
In addition, CALTRANS's proposed activities are localized and of short duration. The entire project area is limited to CALTRANS's Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit work. The entire project would involve the removal of 4 existing piles and installation of 24 in-water piles. The duration for pile removal and pile driving would be 30 days within the 10-month period. These low-intensity, localized, and short-term noise exposures may cause brief startle reactions or short-term behavioral modification by the animals. These reactions and behavioral changes are expected to subside quickly when the exposures cease. Moreover, the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to reduce potential exposures and behavioral modifications even further. Additionally, no important feeding and/or reproductive areas for marine mammals are known to be near the proposed action area. Therefore, the take resulting from the proposed Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit work is not reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the marine mammal species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The proposed project area is not a prime habitat for marine mammals, nor is it considered an area frequented by marine mammals. Behavioral disturbances that could result from anthropogenic noise associated with CALTRANS's construction activities are expected to affect only a small number of marine mammals on an infrequent and limited basis.
The project also is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitat, as analyzed in detail in the “Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat” section. The project activities would not modify existing marine mammal habitat. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.
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, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from CALTRANS's Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit project will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Based on analyses provided above, it is estimated that approximately 710 harbor seals and 968 California sea lions could be exposed to received noise levels that could cause Level B behavioral harassment from the proposed construction work at the Murray Street Bridge in Santa Cruz, California. These numbers represent approximately 2.29% and 0.32% of the populations of harbor seal and California sea lion, respectively, that could be affected by Level B behavioral harassment, respectively (see Table 5 above), which are small percentages relative to the total populations of the affected species or stocks. Accordingly, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.
There are no subsistence uses of marine mammals in the proposed project area; and, thus, no subsistence uses impacted by this action. Therefore, NMFS has 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.
NMFS has determined that issuance of the IHA will have no effect on listed marine mammals, as none are known to occur in the action area.
NMFS prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed issuance of an IHA, pursuant to NEPA, to determine whether or not this proposed activity may have a significant effect on the human environment. This analysis will be completed prior to the issuance or denial of this proposed IHA.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to CALTRANS for conducting the Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit project, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. The proposed IHA language is provided next.
1. This Authorization is valid from March 1, 2016, through February 28, 2017.
2. This Authorization is valid only for activities associated in-water construction work at the Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit project in Santa Cruz, California.
3. (a) The species authorized for incidental harassment takings, Level B harassment only, are: Pacific harbor seal (
(b) The authorization for taking by harassment is limited to the following acoustic sources and from the following activities:
• Impact pile driving;
• Vibratory pile removal; and
• Work associated with above piling activities.
(c) The taking of any marine mammal in a manner prohibited under this Authorization must be reported within 24 hours of the taking to the West Coast Administrator (206-526-6150), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at (301) 427-8401, or her designee (301-427-8401).
4. The holder of this Authorization must notify the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, at least 48 hours prior to the start of activities identified in 3(b) (unless constrained by the date
5. Prohibitions
(a) The taking, by incidental harassment only, is limited to the species listed under condition 3(a) above and by the numbers listed in Table 5. The taking by Level A harassment, injury or death of these species or the taking by harassment, injury or death of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this Authorization.
(b) The taking of any marine mammal is prohibited whenever the required protected species observers (PSOs), required by condition 7(a), are not present in conformance with condition 7(a) of this Authorization.
6. Mitigation
(a) Time Restriction
In-water construction work shall occur only during daylight hours, when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted.
(b) Pre-Construction Removal of Artificial Haul-out Sites.
All known and potential artificial structures could be used by pinnipeds for haul‐out that occur in the construction work area shall be removed. These structures include floating docks (
(c) Pre-Construction Workers Training
Prior to in‐water construction, construction crews should be trained regarding the status and sensitivity of the target species in the area and the actions to be taken to avoid or minimize impacts in the event of a target species entering the in‐water work area.
(d) Establish Exclusion Zones
A 10-m (33 ft) radius around the piling site should be established as an exclusion zone. This exclusion zone is based on received sound levels exceed 190 dB re 1 μPa from impact pile driving.
(e) Establishment of Level B Harassment Zones of Influence
A 1,000-m (0.62-mi) radius around the piling site should be established as a preliminary zone of influence (ZOI) for impact pile driving and for vibratory pile removal. The distance to the edge of the ZOI correspond to received level falls to 160 dB re 1 μPa from impact pile driving and 120 dB re 1 μPa from vibratory pile removal.
(f) Soft Start
(i) CALTRANS shall implement “soft start” (or ramp up) to reduce potential startling behavioral responses from marine mammals.
(ii) Soft start requires contractors to initiate noise from the vibratory hammer for 15 seconds at reduced energy followed by a 1-minute waiting period. The procedure would be repeated two additional times.
(iii) Soft start for impact hammers requires contractors to provide an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets.
(iv) Each day, CALTRANS would use the soft-start technique at the beginning of pile driving, or if pile driving has ceased for more than one hour.
(g) Shutdown Measures
(i) CALTRANS shall implement shutdown measures if a marine mammal is sighted approaching the Level A exclusion zone. In-water construction activities shall be suspended until the marine mammal is sighted moving away from the exclusion zone, or if the animal is not sighted for 30 minutes after the shutdown.
(ii) CALTRANS shall implement shutdown measures if the number of any allotted marine mammal takes reaches the limit under the IHA (if issued), if such marine mammals are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B ZOI during in-water pile driving.
(iii) CALTRANS shall implant shutdown measures if any marine mammals not authorized under the IHA (if issued) are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B ZOI during in-water pile driving.
7. Monitoring:
(a) Visual Monitoring
(i) CALTRANS shall employ NMFS-approved PSO(s) to conduct marine mammal monitoring for its construction project.
(ii) Monitoring of marine mammals around the construction site shall be conducted using high-quality binoculars (
(iii) The PSO(s) should be deployed in locations with the best vantage point where the entire ZOI can be monitored.
(iv) The PSO(s) shall observe and collect data on marine mammals in and around the project area for 30 minutes before, during, and for 30 minutes after all pile removal and pile installation work.
(v) Data collection during marine mammal monitoring would consist of a count of all marine mammals by species, a description of behavior (if possible), location, direction of movement, type of construction that is occurring, time that pile replacement work begins and ends, any acoustic or visual disturbance, and time of the observation. Environmental conditions: Weather, visibility, temperature, tide level, current, and sea state shall also be recorded.
(b) Hydroacoustic Monitoring
(i) CALTRANS shall conduct hydroacoustic monitoring of its initial pile driving to establish exclusion zones and ZOIs based on acoustic measurements.
(ii) CALTRANS shall submit the hydroacoustic monitoring plan for NMFS approval before the measurements are conducted.
(iii) The size of modeled exclusion zones and ZOIs may be adjusted based on in situ acoustic measurements.
8. Reporting:
(a) CALTRANS shall provide NMFS with a draft monitoring report within 90 days of the conclusion of the construction work or within 90 days of the expiration of the IHA, whichever comes first. This report shall detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed.
(b) If comments are received from the NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator or NMFS Office of Protected Resources on the draft report, a final report shall be submitted to NMFS within 30 days thereafter. If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft report will be considered to be the final report.
(c) In the unanticipated event that the construction activities clearly cause the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this Authorization (if issued), such as an injury, serious injury, or mortality, CALTRANS shall immediately cease all operations and immediately report the incident to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report must include the following information:
(i) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
(ii) Description of the incident;
(iii) Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(iv) Environmental conditions (including wind speed and direction, sea state, cloud cover, visibility, and water depth);
(v) Description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(vi) Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
(vii) The fate of the animal(s); and
(viii) Photographs or video footage of the animal (if equipment is available).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with CALTRANS to
(E) In the event that CALTRANS discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
(F) In the event that CALTRANS discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
9. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein or if the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals, or if there is an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for subsistence uses.
10. A copy of this Authorization must be in the possession of each contractor who performs the construction work at the Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofits project.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Deletions from the Procurement List.
This action deletes products from the Procurement List previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.
Patricia Briscoe, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 10/30/2015 (80 FR 66880) and 11/6/2015 (80 FR 68860-68862), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed Additions to the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.
Patricia Briscoe, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entity of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products listed below from the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following products are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:
10:00 a.m., Friday, December 18, 2015.
Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance, enforcement, and examinations matters. In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at
Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202-418-5964.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. Sec. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirement on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, CNCS is soliciting comments concerning its proposed surveys to be conducted for its Process Evaluation of the Social Innovation Fund (SIF) Pay for Success (PFS) Grant Program. The study involves two major survey data collection activities: (1) Grantee Survey, and (2) Subgrantee/Subrecipient Survey. CNCS funded eight grantees in 2014 to provide technical assistance to community organizations and state or local government agencies (referred to as subgrantees/subrecipients) to assist them to determine feasibility of implementing PFS projects in a particular state or locality and to negotiate the terms and structure of the PFS deals (for PFS projects determined feasible). CNCS expects to fund approximately four additional grantees in 2015 and potentially an additional six grantees in 2016 (pending continuation of the grant program). Each grantee is expected to receive three years of funding. Responses will be collected from all current and future SIF PFS grantees and their subgrantees/subrecipients annually for the duration of their SIF PFS funding. The
Copies of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the Addresses section of this Notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:
(1) By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service, Office of Research and Evaluation; Attention Lily Zandniapour, Ph.D., Evaluation Program Manager, Room 10911, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20525.
(2) By hand delivery or by courier to the CNCS mailroom at Room 8100 at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
(3) Electronically through
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
Lily Zandniapour, 202-606-6939 or by email at
CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are expected to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
CNCS has contracted with Abt Associates to support CNCS's Office of Research and Evaluation to implement a process evaluation of the Social Innovation Fund (SIF) Pay for Success (PFS) Grant Program. The major data collection activities to be undertaken subject to this notice will include two surveys: (1) Grantee Survey, and (2) Subgrantee/Subrecipient Survey. Survey information will be collected from current and future SIF PFS grantees and their subgrantees/subrecipients through an online survey program. The purpose of the Grantee Survey is to better understand grantees' program structure, practices in providing technical assistance and deal structuring activities. The Subgrantee/Subrecipient Survey will collect data on activities, capacity, and perspectives and experiences of subgrantees/subrecipients receiving technical assistance from the grantees.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.
Sarah A. Ragan or Heather N. Harwell, DSCA/LMO, (703) 604-1546/(703) 607-5339.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 15-77 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Also included are containers; Guidance Control Units (GCU) spares; recertification and reconfiguration support; spare and repair parts; tools and tool sets; support equipment; personnel training and training equipment; publication and technical data; U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistical support services; and other related elements of logistics support.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Republic of Korea (ROK) has requested a possible sale of:
Also included are containers; Guidance Control Units (GCU) spares; recertification and reconfiguration support; spare and repair parts; tools and tool sets; support equipment; personnel training and training equipment; publication and technical data; U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistical support services; and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated value of MDE is $100 million. The total estimated value is $110 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by meeting the legitimate security and defense needs of an ally and partner nation. The ROK is one of the major political and economic powers in East Asia and the Western Pacific and a key partner of the United States in ensuring peace and stability in that region. It is vital to the U.S. interest to assist our South Korean ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability.
The ROK intends to use the Harpoon Block II missiles to supplement its existing Harpoon missile capability. The acquisition of the Harpoon Block II missiles and support will supplement current weapon inventories and bring the ROK Navy's Anti-Surface Warfare performance up to existing regional baselines. The proposed sale will provide a defensive capability while enhancing interoperability with the United States and other allied forces. Sub-launched Harpoon missiles have been used by the ROK since the 1990s. The ROK will have no difficulty absorbing these additional missiles into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractor will be the Boeing Company in St. Louis, Missouri. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposal sale will not require any additional U.S. government or U.S. contractor personnel in Korea. However, U.S. Government or contractor personnel in-country visits will be required on a temporary basis in conjunction with program technical oversight and support requirements.
There will be no adverse impact on United States defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The UGM-84L Block II Harpoon missile is a submarine launched Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW) missile that provides naval forces with a capability to engage targets in both the “blue water” regions and the littorals of the world. The Harpoon Block II missile, including publications, documentation, operations, supply, maintenance, and training to be conveyed with this proposed sale have the highest classification level of SECRET. The Harpoon Block II missile components being conveyed by the proposed sale that are considered sensitive and are classified include:
a. The Radar seeker
b. The GPS/INS System
c. Operational Flight Program (OFP) Software
d. Missile operational characteristics and performance data
2. These elements are essential to the ability of the Harpoon Block II missile to selectively engage hostile targets under a wide range of operational, tactical and environmental conditions.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that the recipient country can provide the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Republic of Korea.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.
Sarah A. Ragan or Heather N. Harwell, DSCA/LMO, (703) 604-1546/(703) 607-5339.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 15-57 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
This request also includes the following Non-MDE items and services: procurement of bomb equipment components such as adaptors, nose plugs, fusing mechanisms, swivels, support links and connections; associated support equipment; publications, such as technical orders, and system manuals; training; engineering and technical support; transportation (to include special airlift support); program management; and other administrative support and related services.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
*As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Saudi Arabia requested approval to procure the following:
This request also includes the following Non-MDE items and services: procurement of bomb equipment components such as adaptors, nose plugs, fusing mechanisms, swivels, support links and connections; associated support equipment; publications, such as technical orders, and system manuals; training; engineering and technical support; transportation (to include special airlift support); program management; and other administrative support and related services. The total estimated MDE value is $1.10 billion, and the estimated total overall value is $1.29 billion.
The purchase replenishes the Royal Saudi Air Force's (RSAF) current weapons supplies, which are becoming depleted due to the high operational tempo in multiple counter-terrorism operations. The purchase of these munitions rebuilds war reserves and provides options for future contingencies.
The RSAF will have no issues fielding, supporting, and employing these munitions.
The proposed sale augments Saudi Arabia's capability to meet current and future threats from potential adversaries during combat operations. Providing these defense articles supports Saudi Arabian defense missions and promotes stability in the region.
This acquisition will help sustain strong military-to-military relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia, improve operational interoperability with the United States, and enable Saudi Arabia to meet regional threats and safeguard the world's largest oil reserves.
This acquisition contributes to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by increasing the security of an important partner that continues to be a significant force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East. Sustaining Saudi military capabilities deters hostile actors, increases U.S.-Saudi military interoperability, and has a positive impact on the stability of the global economy. This acquisition also directly conveys U.S. commitment to the RSAF's current and future ability to sustain combat operations.
The prime contractor will be determined by competition. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
There is no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. GBU-10 Paveway II Laser Guided 2000-lb bombs and Paveway II Laser Guided GBU-12 500-lb munitions use general purpose (GP) bombs bodies that are fitted with the MXU-651/650 airfoil and the MAU-169 L/B Computer Control Group (CCG) to convert them to Laser Guided Bombs (LGBs). The LGB is a maneuverable, free-fall weapon that guides to a spot of laser energy reflected off of the target. The LGB is delivered like a normal GP warhead and the semi-active guidance corrects for many of the normal errors inherent in any delivery system. The hardware is UNCLASSIFIED. Information revealing the probability of destroying common/unspecified targets, the number of simultaneous lasers the laser seeker head can discriminate, and data on the radar/infra-red frequency is classified CONFIDENTIAL.
2. GBU-31(VI) 2000-lb/GBU-38 500-lb Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) are general purpose bombs fitted with an FMU-152A/B fuze and a KMU-556B/B (KMU-572B/B) guidance
3. GBU-31(V3) Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) are 2000-lb JDAM equipped with the BLU-109 C/B forged steel penetrator warhead. The bomb body is approximately twice as thick as a typical 2000-lb warhead. This hardened case, along with a solid nose, allows it to penetrate hardened targets. All other technical details and risks are identical to the GBU-31(V1) above.
4. The GBU-24 Paveway III (PWIII) is a 2000-lb laser-guided munition that can be employed at high, medium and low altitudes. It utilizes the FMU-139A/B Fuze, BSU-84 airfoil and WGU-43C/B guidance control unit (GCU). Both the MK-84 conventional warhead and the BLU-109 penetrating warhead can be utilized, similar to GBU-31(V1) and GBU-31(V3). Design improvements over versions include proportional navigation, increased terminal accuracy, off-axis release envelopes, trajectory shaping, and target reacquisition capability. Information revealing target designation tactics and associated aircraft maneuvers, the probability of destroying specific/peculiar targets, vulnerabilities regarding countermeasures and the electromagnetic environment is classified SECRET. Information revealing test boundaries, operational envelop and release points, the probability of destroying common/unspecified targets, the number of simultaneous lasers the laser seeker head can discriminate, the terminal impact conditions, the operational flight programming, laser seeker sensitivity and range, laser seeker field of view and field of regard, laser seeker tracking gate widths, laser pulse stability requirements, laser pulse width discrimination details, and data on the radar/infra-red frequency is classified CONFIDENTIAL.
5. The GBU-48 is a 1000-lb (MK-83 or BLU-110) Enhanced Paveway II, dual mode GPS/LGB with the MXU-667 Airfoil and the MAU-169L/B CCG. The laser sensor enhances standard GPS guidance by allowing rapid prosecution of moving targets or fixed targets with large initial target location errors (TLE). Information revealing target designation tactics and associated aircraft maneuvers, the probability of destroying specific/peculiar targets, vulnerabilities regarding countermeasures and the electromagnetic environment is classified SECRET. Information revealing the probability of destroying common/unspecified targets, the number of simultaneous lasers the laser seeker head can discriminate, and data on the radar/infra-red frequency is classified CONFIDENTIAL.
6. The GBU-54/56s are the dual-mode laser JDAM variants of the GBU-38/GBU-31 JDAM. The nose fuzes are replaced with DSU-38/DSU-40s, which give the weapons both GPS and laser guidance capability. The laser sensor enhances the standard JDAM's reactive target capability by allowing rapid prosecution of fixed targets with large initial target location errors (TLE). The addition of the laser sensor combined with additional cabling and mounting hardware turns a standard JDAM into a Laser JDAM. Information revealing target designation tactics and associated aircraft maneuvers, the probability of destroying specific/peculiar targets, vulnerabilities regarding countermeasures and the electromagnetic environment is classified SECRET. Information revealing the probability of destroying common/unspecified targets, the number of simultaneous lasers the laser seeker head can discriminate, and data on the radar/infra-red frequency is classified CONFIDENTIAL.
7. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
8. A determination has been made that the Government of Saudi Arabia can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to Saudi Arabia.
9. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification. Moreover, the benefits to be derived from this sale, as outlined in the Policy Justification, outweigh the potential damage that could result if the sensitive technology were revealed to unauthorized persons.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.
Sarah A. Ragan or Heather N. Harwell, DSCA/LMO, (703) 604-1546/(703) 607-5339.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 15-62 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Also included with this request are operational-level sensor and aircraft test equipment, ground support equipment, operational flight test support, communications equipment, spare and repair parts, personnel training, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act
The Government of Japan has requested a possible sale of:
Also included with this request are operational-level sensor and aircraft test equipment, ground support equipment, operational flight test support, communications equipment, spare and repair parts, personnel training, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated value of MDE is $.689 billion. The total estimated value is $1.2 billion.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States. Japan is one of the major political and economic powers in East Asia and the Western Pacific and a key partner of the United States in ensuring regional peace and stability. This transaction is consistent with U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives and the 1960 Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security.
The proposed sale of the RQ-4 will significantly enhance Japan's intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities and help ensure that Japan is able to continue to monitor and deter regional threats. The Japan Air Self Defense Force (JASDF) will have no difficulty absorbing these systems into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Northrop Grumman Corporation in Rancho Bernardo, California. The purchaser requested offsets but at this time agreements are undetermined and will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of contractor representatives to Japan to perform contractor logistics support and to support establishment of required security infrastructure.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The RQ-4 Block 30 Global Hawk hardware and software are UNCLASSIFIED. The highest level of classified information required for operation may be SECRET depending on the classification of the imagery or Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) utilized on a specific operation. The RQ-4 is optimized for long range and prolonged flight endurance. It is used for military intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Aircraft system, sensor, and navigational status are provided continuously to the ground operators through a health and status downlink for mission monitoring. Navigation is via inertial navigation with integrated global positioning system (GPS) updates. The vehicle is capable of operating from a standard paved runway. Real time missions are flown under the control of a pilot in a Ground Control Element (GCE). It is designed to carry a non-weapons internal payload of 3,000 lbs consisting primarily of sensors and avionics. The following payloads are integrated into the RQ-4: Enhanced Imagery Sensor Suite that includes multi-use infrared, electro-optical, ground moving target indicator, and synthetic aperture radar and a space to accommodate other sensors such as SIGINT. The RQ-4 will include the GCE, which consists of the following components:
a. The Mission Control Element (MCE) is the RQ-4 Global Hawk ground control station for mission planning, communication management, aircraft and mission control, and image processing and dissemination. It can be either fixed or mobile. In addition to the shelter housing the operator workstations, the MCE includes an optional 6.25 meter Ku-Band antenna assembly, a Tactical Modular Interoperable Surface Terminal, a 12-ton Environmental Control Unit (heating and air conditioning), and two 100 kilowatt electrical generators. The MCE, technical data, and documentation are UNCLASSIFIED. The MCE may operate at the classified level depending on the classification of the data feeds.
b. The Launch and Recovery Element (LRE) is a subset of the MCE and can be either fixed or mobile. It provides identical functionality for mission planning and air vehicle command and control (C2). The launch element contains a mission planning workstation and a C2 workstation. The primary difference between the LRE and MCE is the lack of any wide-band data links or image processing capability within the LRE and navigation equipment at the LRE to provide the precision required for ground operations, take-off, and landing. The LRE, technical data, and documentation are UNCLASSIFIED. The EISS includes infrared/electro-optical, synthetic aperture radar imagery, ground moving target indicator and space to accommodate optional SIGINT, Maritime, datalink, and automatic identification system capabilities. The ground control element includes a mission control function and a launch and recovery capability.
c. The RQ-4 employs a quad-redundant Inertial Navigation System/Global Positioning System (INS/GPS) configuration. The system utilizes two different INS/GPS systems for greater redundancy. The system consists of two LN-251 units and two Kearfott KN-4074E INS/GPS Units. The LN-251 is a fully integrated, non-dithered navigation system with an embedded Selective Availability/Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM), P(Y) code or Standard Positioning Service (SPS) GPS. It utilizes a Fiber-Optic Gyro (FOG) and includes three independent navigation solutions: blended INS/GPS, INS-only, and GPS-only. The Kearfott KN-4074E features a Monolithic Ring Laser Gyro (MRLG) and accelerometer. The inertial sensors are tightly coupled with an embedded SAASM P(Y) code GPS. Both systems employ cryptographic technology that can be classified up to SECRET.
2. If a technology advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
3. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 11, 2016.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
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.
Office of English Language Acquisition, Department of Education.
Notice.
National Professional Development Program.
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2016.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.365Z.
Applications Available: December 11, 2015.
Grants awarded under this program may be used for one or more of the following—
(1) Pre-service professional development programs that will assist schools and IHEs to upgrade the qualifications and skills of educational personnel who are not certified or licensed, especially educational paraprofessionals;
(2) The development of program curricula appropriate to the needs of the consortia participants involved; and
(3) In conjunction with other Federal need-based student financial assistance programs, for financial assistance, and costs related to tuition, fees, and books for enrolling in courses required to complete the degree involved, to meet certification or licensing requirements for teachers who work in language
Educator effectiveness is the most important in-school factor affecting student achievement and success.
Through previous competitions, the NPD program has funded a range of grantees that are currently implementing 115 projects across the country. As the EL population continues to grow, it has become increasingly important to identify and support practices implemented by educators of ELs that effectively improve student learning outcomes.
However, there are limited studies that provide evidence about how to best prepare and support educators of ELs in ways that will ultimately improve student learning and outcomes. The existing studies that the Department has identified typically do not meet the highest standards for rigor, and largely focus on professional development for in-service teachers; few focused on preparation for pre-service teachers.
Nonetheless, the body of evidence on effective language, literacy, and content instruction for ELs, including specific instructional practices for English language acquisition, is growing steadily, as documented by the 2014 What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Practice Guide for teaching ELs, available at:
In addition, in order to grow the evidence available to inform the future activities of IHEs, SEAs, and LEAs to support ELs, NPD-funded projects are encouraged to use a portion of their budgets to conduct a rigorous evaluation of their projects that meets the WWC Standards with reservations. Such evaluations would help ensure that projects funded under the NPD program are part of a learning agenda that expands the knowledge base on effective EL practices to ultimately enable all ELs to achieve postsecondary and career success.
For the FY 2016 NPD competition, the Department is particularly interested in supporting projects that improve parental, family, and community engagement. Literature suggests that educators who involve families in their children's education can strengthen their instructional effectiveness with ELs.
The Department is also interested in supporting dual language acquisition approaches that are effective in developing biliteracy skills. Evidence suggests that students who are biliterate have certain cognitive and social benefits compared to their monolingual peers. Further, recent research
In addition, we recognize that linguistic and cultural diversity is an asset, and that dual language approaches may also enhance the preservation of heritage language and culture. These approaches may be particularly impactful for diverse populations of ELs, such as immigrant children and youth and Native American students.
Finally, we are interested in the development of the early learning workforce. In this competition, we encourage pre-service preparation for early learning educators so that they can successfully support ELs. And, because the foundational knowledge of developmental learning and language acquisition skills applies across all levels of teaching ELs, including at the secondary level, we also encourage projects that will include this knowledge building for educators at all levels.
This priority is:
Under this priority we provide funding to projects that provide professional development activities that will improve classroom instruction for ELs and assist educational personnel working with ELs to meet high professional standards, including standards for certification and licensure as teachers who work in language instruction educational programs or serve ELs.
These priorities are:
Projects that are supported by moderate evidence of effectiveness.
Projects that are designed to improve student outcomes through one or more of the following:
(a) Developing and implementing Systemic Initiatives to improve Parent and Family Engagement by expanding and enhancing the skills, strategies, and knowledge (including techniques or use of technological tools needed to effectively communicate, advocate, support, and make informed decisions about the student's education) of parents and families.
(b) Providing professional development that enhances the skills and competencies of school or program leaders, principals, teachers, practitioners, or other administrative and support staff to build meaningful relationships with students' parents or families through Systemic Initiatives that may also support students' learning at home.
(c) Implementing initiatives that improve Community Engagement, the relationships between parents or families and school or program staff by cultivating Sustained Partnerships.
We encourage applicants to propose projects to improve educator preparation and professional learning for dual language implementation models to support effective instruction for ELs. In particular, we encourage such approaches to take into account the unique needs of recently arrived limited English proficient students, immigrant children and youth, and Native American students, who are members of federally recognized Indian tribes.
We encourage applicants to propose projects that improve the quality and effectiveness of the early learning workforce, including administrators, so that they have the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to improve ELs' cognitive, health, social-emotional, and dual language development. Early learning programs are designed to improve early learning and development outcomes across one or more of the Essential Domains of School Readiness for children from birth through third grade (or for any age group within this range). Further, we encourage applicants to include in such projects these foundational professional learning domains for educators at all levels of teaching including secondary preparation.
(A) Who is aged 3 through 21;
(B) Who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary school or secondary school;
(C)(i) Who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than English;
(ii)(I) Who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a Native resident of the outlying areas; and
(II) Who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on the individual's level of English language proficiency; or
(iii) Who is migratory, whose native language is a language other than English, and who comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; and
(D) Whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the individual—
(i) The ability to meet the State's proficient level of achievement on State assessments described in section 111 (b)(3);
(ii) The ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is English; or
(iii) The opportunity to participate fully in society. (Section 9101 of the ESEA)
(A) Are aged 3 through 21;
(B) Were not born in any State; and
(C) Have not been attending one or more schools in any one or more States for more than 3 full academic years. (Section 3301 of the ESEA)
(A) In which a limited English proficient child is placed for the purpose of developing and attaining English proficiency, while meeting challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards, as required by section 1111(b)(1); and
(B) That may make instructional use of both English and a child's native language to enable the child to develop and attain English proficiency, and may include the participation of English proficient children if such course is
(A) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations, found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (with no statistically significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the study or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works Clearinghouse), and includes a sample that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or practice.
(B) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations, found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (with no statistically significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the study or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works Clearinghouse), includes a sample that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or practice, and includes a large sample and a multi-site sample. (34 CFR 77.1)
For grades and subjects in which assessments are required under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA: (1) A student's score on such assessments; and, as appropriate (2) other measures of student learning, such as those described in the subsequent paragraph, provided that they are rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA.
For grades and subjects in which assessments are not required under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA: (1) Alternative measures of student learning and performance, such as student results on pre-tests, end-of-course tests, and objective performance-based assessments; (2) student learning objectives; (3) student performance on English language proficiency assessments; and (4) other measures of student achievement that are rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA. (Supplemental Priorities).
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to IHEs only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2017 or later years from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA 84.365Z.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2. a.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: December 31, 2015.
We will be able to develop a more efficient process for reviewing grant applications if we know the approximate number of applicants that intend to apply for funding under this competition. Therefore, the Secretary strongly encourages each potential applicant to notify us of the applicant's intent to submit an application by emailing
Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. Applicants must limit the application narrative to no more than 35 pages. Applicants are also strongly encouraged not to include lengthy appendices that contain information that they were unable to include within the page limits for the narrative.
Applicants must use the following standards:
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1” margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The page limit for the application does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the bibliography, or the letters of support of the application. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section [Part III] of the application.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit or if you apply other standards and exceed the equivalent of the page limit.
b.
Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the NPD program, your application may include business information that you consider proprietary. In 34 CFR 5.11 we define “business information” and describe the process we use in determining whether any of that information is proprietary and, thus, protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended).
Consistent with the process followed in the prior NPD competitions, we may post the project narrative section of funded NPD applications on the Department's Web site so you may wish to request confidentiality of business information. Identifying proprietary information in the submitted application will help facilitate this public disclosure process.
Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: December 31, 2015. Informational Meetings: The NPD program intends to hold Webinars designed to provide technical assistance to interested applicants. Detailed information regarding these meetings will be provided on the NPD Web site at
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov application site. For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: April 19, 2016.
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site:
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you entered into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through, Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
Applications for grants for the NPD program must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.
a.
Applications for grants under the NPD program, CFDA number 84.365Z, must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the NPD program at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, non-modifiable Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file (
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department. Grants.gov will also notify you automatically by email if your application met all the Grants.gov validation requirements or if there were any errors (such as submission of your application by someone other than a registered Authorized Organization Representative, or inclusion of an attachment with a file name that contains special characters). You will be given an opportunity to correct any errors and resubmit, but you must still meet the deadline for submission of applications.
Once your application is successfully validated by Grants.gov, the Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you an email with a unique PR/Award number for your application.
These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by Grants.gov, it must also meet the Department's application requirements as specified in this notice and in the application instructions. Disqualifying errors could include, for instance, failure to upload attachments in a read-only, non-modifiable PDF; failure to submit a required part of the application; or failure to meet applicant eligibility requirements. It is your responsibility to ensure that your submitted application has met all of the Department's requirements.
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Patrice Swann, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5C144, Washington, DC 20202-6510. FAX: (202) 260-5496.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
he U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
(a)
The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
(2) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating the proposed project will result in information to guide possible replications of project activities or strategies including information about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the project.
(3) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by strong theory (as defined in this notice).
(b)
The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator.
(c)
The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
(2) The extent to which the time commitment of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project.
(d)
The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.
(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations.
(3) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
The following are technical assistance resources on evaluation: (1) WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook:
In addition, we invite applicants to view two Webinar recordings that were hosted by the Institute of Education Sciences. The first Webinar addresses strategies for designing and executing well-designed quasi-experimental design studies. This Webinar is available at:
2.
Applicants should note, however, that we may screen for eligibility at multiple points during the competition process, including before and after peer review; applicants that are determined to be ineligible will not receive a grant award regardless of peer reviewer scores or comments. If we determine that an NPD grant application does not meet an NPD requirement, the application will not be considered for funding.
For NPD grant applications, the Department intends to conduct a two-part review process to review and score all eligible applications. Content reviewers will review and score all eligible applications on the following three selection criteria: (a) Quality of the project design; (b) Quality of project personnel; and (c) Quality of the management plan. These reviewers will also review and score the second competitive preference priority. Peer reviewers with evaluation expertise will review and score the selection criteria under (d) Quality of the project evaluation.
We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) The Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
5.
(a)
Measure 1: The number and percentage of program participants who complete the preservice program. Completion is defined by the applicant in the submitted application.
Measure 2: The number and percentage of program participants who complete the inservice program. Completion is defined by the applicant in the submitted application.
Measure 3: The number and percentage of program completers, as defined by the applicant under measures 1 and 2, who are State certified, licensed, or endorsed in EL instruction.
Measure 4: The percentage of program completers who rate the program as effective in preparing them to serve EL students.
Measure 5: The percentage of school leaders, other educators, and employers of program completers who rated the program as effective in preparing their teachers, or other educators, to serve ELs or improve their abilities to serve ELs effectively.
Measure 6: For projects that received competitive preference points for Competitive Priority 2, the percentage of program completers who rated the program as effective, as defined by the grantees, in increasing their knowledge and skills related to parent, family, and community engagement.
(b)
(c)
(1) Why each proposed performance target is ambitious (as defined in this notice) yet achievable compared to the baseline for the performance measure.
(2) The data collection and reporting methods the applicant would use and why those methods are likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data; and
(3) The applicant's capacity to collect and report reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data, as evidenced by high-quality data collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research.
If the applicant does not have experience with collection and reporting of performance data through other projects or research, the applicant should provide other evidence of capacity to successfully carry out data collection and reporting for its proposed project.
(d)
(e)
5.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
Samuel Lopez, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5C152, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 401-4300. FAX: (202) 205-1229 or by email at
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Vehicle Technologies, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Submission for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review; comment request.
The Department of Energy has submitted to the OMB for clearance, a proposal to extend for three years a collection of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The approved collection is being used for two Clean Cities programmatic efforts. The first is related to a scorecard that assists DOE's Clean Cities coalitions and stakeholders in assessing the level of readiness of their communities for plug-in electric vehicles (PEV). The second effort is intended to develop information that enables DOE to measure the impact and progress of DOE's National Clean Fleets Partnership (Partnership). DOE is not proposing to expand the scope of these information collection efforts.
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before January 11, 2016. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed below as soon as possible.
Written comments should be sent to:
Desk Officer for the Department of Energy, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. And to Mr. Dennis Smith, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE-3V), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, or by fax at 202-586-1600, or by email at
Mr. Dennis Smith at the address listed above in
The approved collection is being used for two Clean Cities programmatic efforts. The first is related to a scorecard that assists DOE's Clean Cities coalitions and stakeholders in assessing the level of readiness of their communities for plug-in electric vehicles (PEV). The second effort is intended to develop information that enables DOE to measure the impact and progress of DOE's National Clean Fleets Partnership (Partnership). DOE is not proposing to expand the scope of these information collection efforts.
This information collection request contains: (1)
DOE expects a total respondent population of approximately 1,250 respondents. Selecting the multiple choice answers in completing a scorecard questionnaire is expected to take under 30 minutes, although additional time of no more than 20 hours may be needed to assemble information necessary to be able to answer the questions, leading to a total burden of approximately 25,625 hours. Assembling information to update questionnaire answers in the future on a voluntary basis would be expected to take less time, on the order of 10 hours, as much of any necessary time and effort needed to research information would have been completed previously.
For the Clean Fleets Partnership information collection, the Partnership is targeted at large, private-sector fleets that own or have contractual control over at least 50 percent of their vehicles and have vehicles operating in multiple States. DOE expects approximately 50 fleets to participate in the Partnership and, as a result, DOE expects a total respondent population of approximately 50 respondents. Providing initial baseline information for each participating fleet, which occurs only once, is expected to take 60 minutes. Follow-up questions and clarifications for the purpose of ensuring accurate analyses are expected to take up to 90 minutes. The total burden is expected to be 125 hours.
The combined burden for the two information collections is 25,750 hours.
(5)
42 U.S.C. 13233; 42 U.S.C. 13252 (a)-(b); 42 U.S.C. 13255.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE) invites public comment on a proposed collection of information that DOE is developing for submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed collection in support of the DOE's Small Business Vouchers (SBV) pilot will gather quantitative estimates of the pilot's impacts as well as capture implementation lessons learned. The information is needed to assess the impacts of the SBV Pilot, documenting that the investment is producing the expected results, and to determine ways to improve the pilot should it be expanded in scope.
The SBV Pilot is a funding mechanism structured to allow small businesses engaged in the renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors to collaborate with researchers at the DOE National Laboratories and to take advantage of the resources at the Labs that assist small businesses in proceeding through commercialization challenges. Respondents will include small businesses participating in the pilot as well a comparison group of businesses with Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA) outside of the SBV Pilot.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before February 9, 2016. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in
Written comments may be emailed to:
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be emailed to:
This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. “New”; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Web-survey of Participating and Nonparticipating Small Businesses for DOE's Small Business Vouchers Pilot (3) Type of Request: New; (4) Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness and impacts of DOE's Small Business Vouchers (SBV) pilot program, to capture lessons learned, and make recommendations; the information collection will be through a web based survey, allowing participating SBV firms and the comparison firms to answer questions at a time most convenient for them. The web survey will consist of two full-length surveys, conducted once after the first year of vouchers has been completed and once five years after the pilot began, and three abbreviated surveys in the interim years (years two, three and four). The first full-length survey (30 minutes in length for about 70 SBV participants and about 70 comparison firms) will stress questions about the application, selection, work agreement and completion processes and also ask about commercialization progress and other outcomes. The survey in year five (30 minutes in length) will ask about 300 firms participating in SBV from Years 1-4 and about 100 comparison firms about interest in continuing to engage with the national Laboratories, but concentrate on commercialization and other outcomes and how much the DOE program contributed to the outcomes. The abbreviated, interim-year surveys will be 15 minutes in length and will provide status updates on SBV pilot impacts such as commercialization and other outcomes. The purpose of also surveying small business firms that have completed similar work through the existing CRADA process is to investigate similarities and differences in the two small business engagement programs. The data collected in the year five survey will also be used to perform a benefit-cost calculation and benchmark comparison of voucher firms to firms in the DOE Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, based on existing SBIR data. (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents Year 1 Survey: 140; Year 5 Survey: 400; Year 2, 3 and 4 Survey: 300. (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: Year 1 Survey: 140; Year 5 Survey: 400; Year 2, 3 and 4 Survey: 300 (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours (Total): Year 1 Survey: 70; Year 5 Survey: 200; Year 2, 3 and 4 Survey: 75 (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: Year 1 Survey: $0; Year 5 Survey: $0; Year 2, 3 and 4 Survey: $0.
DOE Org Act (42 U.S.C. 7101,
Issued in Washington, DC.
Take notice that on December 4, 2015, Exelon Generation Company, LLC. submitted its Opinion No. 536 Fuel Cost Allowance Compliance Filing.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR § 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on November 20, 2015, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Tennessee), 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed an application pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) seeking authority to (i) construct, install, modify, and operate certain pipeline and compression facilities to be located in Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut, and (ii) to abandon certain facilities, as part of the Northeast Energy Direct Project (NED Project), as described in more detail below. Tennessee proposes to provide up to 1.3 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of firm capacity at a cost of approximately $5.2 billion dollars, all as more fully set forth in the application. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Specifically, the NED Project includes two components: (1) The Supply Path Component, which is comprised of facilities from Troy, Pennsylvania, to Wright, New York (Supply Path Component), and (2) the Market Path Component, which is comprised of facilities from Wright, New York, to Dracut, Massachusetts (Market Path Component). The Supply Path Component facilities include: (i) Approximately 174 miles of pipeline facilities in Pennsylvania and New York of which approximately 41 miles will be looped, (ii) three new compressor stations totaling 153,500 horsepower (hp), (iii) modifications to one existing compressor station, (iv) two new meter stations, and (v) various appurtenant facilities. The Market Path Component facilities include: (i) Approximately 188 miles of mainline pipeline facilities in New York, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, (ii) approximately 58 miles of lateral and pipeline looping, including a total of five delivery laterals in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, one pipeline loop in Connecticut, (iii) six new compressor stations totaling 207,600 hp, (iv) construction of 13 new meter stations, (v) modification of 14 existing meter stations, and (vi) various appurtenant facilities.
Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to Jacquelyne M. Rocan, Assistant General Counsel, at Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002 or at (713) 420-4544 (phone), or (713) 420-1601 (facsimile), or email:
On October 2, 2014, Commission staff granted Tennessee's request to utilize the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF14-22-000 to staff activities involving the project. Now, as of the filing of this application on November 20, 2015, the NEPA Pre-Filing Process for this project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP16-21-000 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 in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Take notice that on November 20, 2015, NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC (NEXUS), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77056, filed in Docket No. CP16-22-000 an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization: (i) To construct approximately 255.9 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter interstate pipeline in Ohio and Michigan; (ii) to construct four compressor stations, totaling 130,000 horsepower (HP); (iii) to construct various appurtenances (collectively, the NEXUS Project); (iv) of its proposed
Additionally, on November 20, 2015, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77056, filed in Docket No. CP16-23-000 an application pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the NGA for authorization: (i) To construct approximately 4.4 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline loop in Monroe County, Ohio; (ii) to construct 1,790 feet of connecting pipeline to the NEXUS Project in Columbiana County, Ohio; (iii) to construct a new 18,800 HP compressor station in Columbiana County, Ohio; (iv) to construct a new 9,400 HP compressor unit at its existing Colerain Compressor Station in Belmont County, Ohio; (v) to modify Line 73 to allow for bi-directional flow; (vi) to construct various appurtenances (collectively, the TEAL Project); (vii) to abandon by lease to NEXUS 950,155 Dth/d; and (vii) for any waivers the Commission deems necessary for the TEAL Project. Texas Eastern estimates the cost of the TEAL Project to be approximately $183,519,668.
These applications will be reviewed contemporaneously with the application for an operating lease filed by DTE Gas Company in Docket No. CP16-24-000 on November 24, 2015.
All of the applications are on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site Web at
Any questions concerning the application in Docket No. CP16-22-000 may be directed to Berk Donaldson or Leanne Sidorkewicz, NEXUS Gas Transmission LLC, 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77056, by telephone at (713) 627-4488, or by email at
Any questions concerning the application in Docket No. CP16-23-000 may be directed to Berk Donaldson, General Manger, Rates and Certificates, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, PO Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, by telephone at (713) 624-4488, or by facsimile at (713) 627-5947.
On December 30, 2014, the Commission staff granted NEXUS' request to utilize the Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF15-10-000 to staff's activities involved in the NEXUS Project. Now, as of the November 20, 2015 application, the Pre-Filing Process for the NEXUS Project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP16-22-000, as noted in the caption of this Notice.
On January 16, 2015, the Commission staff granted Texas Eastern's request to utilize the Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF15-11-000 to staff's activities involved in the TEAL Project. Now, as of the November 20, 2015 application, the Pre-Filing Process for the TEAL Project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP16-23-000, 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 seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. 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
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following open access transmission tariff 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.
Notice of Decision.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is confirming that the California Air Resources Board's (CARB's) 2011 amendments to its Small Off-Road Engines (SORE) regulations (2011 SORE amendments), Tier 4 Off-Road Compression-Ignition (CI) regulations (2011 Tier 4 amendments), and Exhaust Emission Certification Test Fuel for Off-Road Spark-Ignition (SI) Engines, Equipment, and Vehicles regulations (2011 Certification Test Fuel amendments) are within the scope of previous EPA authorizations. The 2011 SORE amendments modify California's existing SORE test procedures by aligning California procedures to be consistent with recent amendments by EPA to the federal certification and exhaust emission testing requirements.
Petitions for review must be filed by February 9, 2016.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0535. All documents relied upon in making this decision, including those submitted to EPA by CARB, are contained in the public docket. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through
EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) maintains a Web page that contains general information on its review of California waiver and authorization requests. Included on that page are links to prior waiver
Brenton Williams, Attorney-Advisor, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone: (734) 214-4341. Fax: (734) 214-4053. Email:
CARB includes within its SORE regulations small off-road engines and equipment
CARB first adopted standards and test procedures applicable to SORE in 1992. In 1993, CARB amended these regulations to delay their implementation until 1995. EPA authorized these initial SORE regulations in 1995.
In 1998, CARB amended the SORE regulation to apply to all engines rated less than 19 kW used in off-road applications. The 1998 amendments also revised the regulations to be based on engine displacement instead of whether the engine is used in a handheld or non-handheld application, delayed implementation of certain portions of the standards, and adopted new emission standards for new engines under 19 kW. EPA confirmed these amendments to be within the scope of previous authorizations in 2000.
In 2004, CARB amended its off-road CI regulations to match federal standards and exhaust emissions standards, and adopted evaporative emissions standards for small off-road SI engines rated at or below 19 kW. EPA granted a full authorization for these amendments in 2006.
The second element of CARB's request is amendments to its nonroad regulations that include CI engines used in tractors, excavators, dozers, scrapers, portable generators, transport refrigeration units, irrigation pumps, welders, compressors, scrubbers, and sweepers.
The third element of CARB's request is amendments to its Exhaust Emission Certification Test Fuel for Off-Road SI
The initial SORE regulation and the 1993 amendments to the SORE regulation allowed manufacturers to utilize either Indolene or California Phase 1 fuel as test fuel for certification.
The initial LSI regulation specified that the certified gasoline test fuels for LSI engines were either Indolene or CaRFG2. EPA granted California a new authorization for the initial LSI regulation on May 15, 2006.
The initial CARB Marine SI Engine regulation applicable to 2001 and later model year outboard SI marine engines and personal watercraft engines established test procedures that were virtually identical to those in the federal SI Marine Engine regulations. In 2002 CARB adopted regulations establishing exhaust emission standards and related certification and test procedures for 2003 and later model year SI inboard and sterndrive marine engines that specified the same certification test fuels as those applicable to outboard engines and personal water craft.
EPA granted California a new authorization for the initial OHRV regulation, which included initial test fuel certification requirements, in 1996,
By letter dated June 13, 2014, CARB submitted a request to EPA pursuant to section 209(e) of the Act for authorization of its 2011 SORE amendments, 2011 Tier 4 amendments, and 2011 Certification Test Fuel amendments (with all three sets of amendments collectively known as the “2011 Amendments”). CARB sought EPA's confirmation that the 2011 Amendments fell within the scope of EPA's previous authorizations, or, in the alternate, a full authorization for those amendments.
CARB approved the 2011 SORE amendments at issue on December 16, 2011, and adopted them on October 25, 2012.
CARB approved the Tier 4 amendments at issue on December 16, 2011, and adopted them on October 25, 2012.
The 2011 Certification Test Fuel amendments modify the certification test fuel requirements for off-road spark ignition, gasoline-fueled engines to allow the use of 10-percent ethanol-blend of gasoline (E10) as a certification fuel. The use of the E10 certification fuel is allowed as an option for certification exhaust emission testing of new gasoline-fueled SORE, LSI, Recreational Marine, and OHRV off-road categories from the 2013 through 2019 model years, and is mandatory for certification exhaust emission testing of these categories beginning with the 2020 model year.
Section 209(e)(1) of the Act permanently preempts any state, or political subdivision thereof, from adopting or attempting to enforce any standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions for certain new nonroad engines or vehicles.
On July 20, 1994, EPA promulgated a rule interpreting the three criteria set forth in section 209(e)(2)(A) that EPA must consider before granting any California authorization request for nonroad engine or vehicle emission standards.
In order to be consistent with section 209(a), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not apply to new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. To be consistent with section 209(e)(1), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not attempt to regulate engine categories that are permanently preempted from state regulation. To determine consistency with section 209(b)(1)(C), EPA typically reviews nonroad authorization requests under the same “consistency” criteria that are applied to motor vehicle waiver requests under section 209(b)(1)(C). That provision provides that the Administrator shall not grant California a motor vehicle waiver if she finds that California “standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a)” of the Act. Previous decisions granting waivers and authorizations have noted that state standards and enforcement procedures will be found to be inconsistent with section 202(a) if (1) there is inadequate lead time to permit the development of the necessary technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that time, or (2) the federal and state testing procedures impose inconsistent certification requirements.
In light of the similar language of sections 209(b) and 209(e)(2)(A), EPA has reviewed California's requests for authorization of nonroad vehicle or engine standards under section 209(e)(2)(A) using the same principles that it has historically applied in reviewing requests for waivers of preemption for new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine standards under section 209(b).
The law makes it clear that the waiver requests cannot be denied unless the specific findings designated in the statute can properly be made. The issue of whether a proposed California requirement is likely to result in only marginal improvement in California air quality not commensurate with its costs or is otherwise an arguably unwise exercise of regulatory power is not legally pertinent to my decision under section 209, so long as the California requirement is consistent with section 202(a) and is more stringent than applicable Federal requirements in the sense that it may result in some further reduction in air pollution in California.
If California amends regulations that were previously authorized by EPA, California may ask EPA to determine that the amendments are within the scope of the earlier authorization. A within-the-scope determination for such
In previous waiver decisions, EPA has recognized that the intent of Congress in creating a limited review based on the section 209(b)(1) criteria was to ensure that the federal government did not second-guess state policy choices. This has led EPA to state:
It is worth noting . . . I would feel constrained to approve a California approach to the problem which I might also feel unable to adopt at the federal level in my own capacity as a regulator. The whole approach of the Clean Air Act is to force the development of new types of emission control technology where that is needed by compelling the industry to “catch up” to some degree with newly promulgated standards. Such an approach . . . may be attended with costs, in the shape of reduced product offering, or price or fuel economy penalties, and by risks that a wider number of vehicle classes may not be able to complete their development work in time. Since a balancing of these risks and costs against the potential benefits from reduced emissions is a central policy decision for any regulatory agency under the statutory scheme outlined above, I believe I am required to give very substantial deference to California's judgments on this score.
EPA has stated that the text, structure, and history of the California waiver provision clearly indicate both a congressional intent and appropriate EPA practice of leaving the decision on “ambiguous and controversial matters of public policy” to California's judgment.
The House Committee Report explained as part of the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act, where Congress had the opportunity to restrict the waiver provision, it elected instead to explain California's flexibility to adopt a complete program of motor vehicle emission controls. The amendment is intended to ratify and strengthen the California waiver provision and to affirm the underlying intent of that provision,
As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has made clear in
[T]he language of the statute and its legislative history indicate that California's regulations, and California's determinations that they must comply with the statute, when presented to the Administrator are presumed to satisfy the waiver requirements and that the burden of proving otherwise is on whoever attacks them. California must present its regulations and findings at the hearing and thereafter the parties opposing the waiver request bear the burden of persuading the Administrator that the waiver request should be denied.
With regard to the standard of proof, the court in
[. . .] consider all evidence that passes the threshold test of materiality and * * * thereafter assess such material evidence against a standard of proof to determine whether the parties favoring a denial of the waiver have shown that the factual circumstances exist in which Congress intended a denial of the waiver.
With regard to the protectiveness finding, the court upheld the Administrator's position that, to deny a waiver, there must be “clear and compelling evidence” to show that proposed enforcement procedures undermine the protectiveness of California's standards.
With respect to the consistency finding, the court did not articulate a standard of proof applicable to all proceedings, but found that the opponents of the waiver were unable to meet their burden of proof even if the standard were a mere preponderance of the evidence. Although
On November 21, 2014, EPA published a
EPA requested comment on the 2011 Amendments, as follows: (1) Should California's amendments be considered under the within-the-scope analysis, or should they be considered under the full authorization criteria?; (2) If those amendments should be considered as a within-the-scope request, do they meet the criteria for EPA to grant a within-the-scope confirmation?; and (3) If the amendments should not be considered under the within-the-scope analysis, or in the event that EPA determines they are not within the scope of the previous authorization, do they meet the criteria for making a full authorization determination?
EPA received no written comments. Additionally, EPA received no requests for a public hearing. Consequently, EPA did not hold a public hearing.
The 2011 SORE amendments incorporate provisions of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1054 and 1065 into the test procedures applicable to 2013 and later model year engines, and incorporate citations to the newly modified test procedures. The 2011 SORE amendments dealt with three specific topics: (1) Improved alignment with 40 CFR part 1054; (2) improved alignment with 40 CFR part 1065; and (3) amendments to CA-Part 1065 that maintain differences between California and EPA test procedures. CARB asserts that the 2011 SORE amendments do not affect the stringency of the exhaust emission standards and associated test procedures for SORE engines.
Part 1054 contains certification protocols, production-line testing requirements, credit-generation allowances, and other related provisions applicable to federally certified engines. Since CARB had already promulgated California-specific versions of these provisions for SORE engines, the 2011 SORE amendments adopted language similar to Part 1054, but with modifications that substitute California's specific emission standards, production-line testing requirements and credit-generations allowances for the corresponding federal provisions.
Part 1065 specifies the “state-of-the-art” testing equipment, systems, and processes that must be utilized in conducting emissions testing of applicable engines. The 2011 SORE amendments largely align the test procedures applicable to 2013 and later model year engines with the requirements specified in Part 1065, and will therefore prevent the need for manufacturers to conduct separate emissions tests for certifying engines with EPA and CARB.
The 2011 SORE amendments maintain California-specific requirements applicable to new 2013 and later model year SORE engines in the following areas: Allowance for supplemental engine cooling, measurement of particulate matter (PM) emissions from two-stroke engines, and exhaust emission certification test fuel requirements (discussed later in the decision).
The 2011 Tier 4 amendments enhance the harmonization of CARB's exhaust emission requirements for new off-road CI engines with the corresponding federal emissions requirements for nonroad CI engines in 40 CFR parts 1039, 1065, and 1068, as most recently amended by EPA in 2011.
The 2011 Tier 4 amendments aligned with the federal alternate combined oxides of nitrogen and non-methane hydrocarbons (ALT NO
The 2011 Tier 4 amendments primarily revise California's Tier 4 off-road CI engine test procedures to align them with the modifications to the corresponding federal nonroad CI engine test procedures that have been enacted by EPA since 2005 to improve the accuracy and precision of the measurement and reporting of emissions data. The new California off-road CI engine test procedures are comprised of three separate documents that largely incorporate provisions of the federal test procedures contained in 40 CFR parts 1039, 1065, and 1068, but that also incorporate several California-specific modifications.
The 2011 Tier 4 amendments incorporate EPA's June 28, 2011 modifications to Part 1039 into the new test procedure entitled “California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for New 2011 and Later Tier 4 Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines, Part I-D”. Included among the alignments are modification of the criterion for selecting engine families regarding engine cylinder arrangement (§ 1039.230(b)(7)), removal of unnecessary and/or redundant labeling and notification instructions regarding the equipment manufacturer flexibility program (§ 1039.625), correction of clerical errors that inadvertently elevated the minimum standard for equipment flexibility engines beyond that originally intended (§ 1039.625(e)(3)), and clarification regarding the rounding of Averaging, Banking, and Trading credits (§ 1039.705(b)).
The 2011 Tier 4 amendments deleted CARB's existing CA-Part 1065-based test procedures and created a brand-new version in Part I-E based solely on CARB's modifications to EPA's 40 CFR 1065 as it existed on June 28, 2011.
The 2011 Tier 4 amendments incorporate EPA's modifications to 40 CFR part 1068 into the new test procedure entitled “California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for New 2011 and Later Tier 4 Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines, Part I-F”. The 2011 Tier 4 amendments included alignments regarding allowance for distributors to replace incorrect labels prior to sale of the engine to an ultimate purchaser (§ 1068.101(b)(7)(i)(D)), incorporation of provisions related to the duration and applicability of Executive Orders (§ 1068.103(c)), incorporation and clarification of anti-stockpiling provisions (§ 1068.103 and 105), revisions to the label content for replacement engines (§ 1068.240), clarification of the provisions for shipping engines independently of required after treatment and for delegated final assembly (§ 1068.260 and 261), clarification that defect reporting applies only to regulated pollutants and revision of thresholds for filing reports (§ 1068.501), and incorporation of the federal definition for “Date of Manufacture” (§ 1068.801).
The 2011 Tier 4 amendments also included a new section that establishes an anti-stockpiling provision that is consistent with recently added federal provisions in 40 CFR 1068.103 and 1068.105 which address intentional over-production of engines prior to a year in which a change in the emissions standards occur.
The 2011 Tier 4 amendments also maintain differences from the federal provisions that are needed to support California's unique air quality programs. These differences primarily consist of documentation requirements. CARB states that none of the differences present any technical obstacles for off-road engine manufacturers.
The 2011 Certification Test Fuel amendments modify the certification test fuel requirements for off-road SI, gasoline-fueled engines to allow the use of 10-percent ethanol-blend of gasoline (E10) as a certification fuel.
California requested that the Administrator confirm that the 2011 Amendments detailed above are within the scope of previously granted authorizations.
In regard to the first within-the-scope criterion, CARB found that the 2011 Amendments did not cause the California emissions standards, in the aggregate, to be less protective of public health and welfare than applicable federal standards. California asserts their protectiveness determination is not arbitrary or capricious, and that the elements of the 2011 Amendments do not affect the stringency of the previously authorized SORE or Tier 4 Off-Road CI emission standards and associated test procedures, or the other regulations and test procedures affected by these amendments (LSI, Recreational Marine, and OHRV).
Based on the record before us and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we cannot find that California's protectiveness determination regarding the implementation of 2011 Amendments is arbitrary or capricious.
In regard to the second within-the-scope criterion, the 2011 Amendments do not attempt to regulate new motor vehicles or motor vehicles engines and so are consistent with section 209(a). They likewise did not attempt to regulate any of the permanently preempted engines or vehicles, and so are consistent with section 209(e)(1). Finally, they did not cause any technological feasibility issues for manufacturers or cause inconsistency between state and federal test procedures, per section 209(b)(1)(C). No manufacturer raised technical feasibility or lead time concerns regarding the 2011 Amendments.
The 2011 Amendments present no issue of incompatibility between California and federal test procedures, as they essentially harmonize California's test procedures associated with the SORE, Off-Road CI Engine, LSI, Recreational Marine, and OHRV regulations with the corresponding federal test procedures. The corresponding federal regulations for such engines have already designated E10 as a test fuel for exhaust emissions testing, so the amendments do not impose inconsistent certification requirements so as to make manufacturers unable to meet both California and federal requirements with one test vehicle or engine.
In regard to the third within-the-scope criterion, California stated that it is not aware of any new issues presented by the 2011 Amendments that affect the previously granted authorizations for the SORE, Off-Road CI Engine, LSI, Recreational Marine, or OHRV regulations, and EPA has received no evidence to the contrary.
Having received no contrary evidence regarding these amendments, we find that California has met the three criteria for a within-the-scope authorization approval, and the 2011 Amendments are confirmed as within the scope of previous EPA authorizations of California's SORE, Off-Road CI Engine, LSI, Recreational Marine, or OHRV regulations.
The Administrator has delegated the authority to grant California section 209(e) authorizations to the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. After evaluating the 2011 amendments to CARB's SORE regulations, Tier 4 Off-Road CI regulations, and Exhaust Emission Certification Test Fuel for Off-Road Spark-Ignition Engines, Equipment, and Vehicles regulations described above and CARB's submissions for EPA review, EPA is taking the following actions.
First, EPA confirms that California's 2011 amendments modifying its SORE regulations is within the scope of prior authorizations. Second, EPA confirms that California's amendment modifying its Tier 4 Off-Road CI regulations is within the scope of prior authorizations. Third, EPA confirms that California's amendment modifying its Exhaust Emission Certification Test Fuel for Off-Road Spark-Ignition Engines,
This decision will affect persons in California and those manufacturers and/or owners/operators nationwide who must comply with California's requirements. In addition, because other states may adopt California's standards for which a section 209(e)(2)(A) authorization has been granted if certain criteria are met, this decision would also affect those states and those persons in such states.
As with past authorization and waiver decisions, this action is not a rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget as required for rules and regulations by Executive Order 12866.
In addition, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has not prepared a supporting regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of this action on small business entities.
Further, the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for nominations.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites nominations to fill vacancies on its National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT). The Agency seeks nominees from a diverse range of qualified candidates representing the following sectors: Academia; state, local, and tribal governments; business and industry; and, non-governmental organizations. Potential vacancies are anticipated to be filled in April, 2016. Sources in addition to this
Nomination packages must be emailed or postmarked no later than January 15, 2016.
Nomination packages may be mailed to: Eugene Green, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management, and Outreach, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1601M), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Eugene Green, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. EPA; telephone (202) 564-2432; fax (202) 564-8129; email
Nominees will be considered according to the mandates of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires committees to maintain diversity across a broad range of constituencies, sectors, groups, and geographical locations. EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an effort to obtain nominations of diverse candidates, EPA encourages nominations from women and men of all racial and ethnic groups, as well as persons with disabilities. Please note that interested candidates may self-nominate.
The following criteria will be used to evaluate nominees:
EPA's policy is that, unless otherwise prescribed by statute, members generally are appointed to two year terms.
Prospective candidates interested in being considered for an appointment to serve on the Council, should submit the following items to process your nomination package: Nomination packages must include a brief statement of interest, resume, or curriculum vitae, and a short biography (no more than two paragraphs) describing your professional and educational qualifications, including a list of relevant activities and any current or previous service on advisory
In preparing your statement of interest, please describe how your background, knowledge, and experience will bring value to the work of the committee, and how these qualifications would contribute to the overall diversity of the Council. Also, be sure to describe any previous involvement with the Agency through employment, grant funding and/or contracting sources.
To help the Agency in evaluating the effectiveness of its outreach efforts, also tell us how you learned of this opportunity in your statement of interest (cover letter). Please be aware that EPA's policy is that candidates representing academia and tribal governments/communities must also provide a letter from the entity, authorizing the nominee to represent the points of view as demonstrated by that specific entity or group (such as a college/university or tribal government/community) that has an interest in the subject matter under the committee's charge.
Anyone interested in being considered for nomination is encouraged to submit a nomination (application) package by the submission deadline on January 15, 2016. Nomination packages may be mailed to: Eugene Green, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management, and Outreach, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1601M), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
To expedite the process, it is preferable to submit the nomination package with the required information/documents electronically to
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Export-Import Bank of the U.S.
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. This collection allows insured/guaranteed parties and insurance brokers to report overdue payments from the borrower and/or guarantor. Ex-Im Bank customers will submit this form electronically through
The form can be viewed at:
Comments should be received on or before January 11, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
Stacy Lee, Export Import Bank, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20571.
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.
The Marketing Fax Back Response Form is used to collect basic information on United States companies. This information will be provided the Export Import Bank's financial consultants nationwide and will be used to provide assistance to exporters.
The form may be viewed at
Comments should be received on or before January 11, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services.
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 9, 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.
The FCC's maintains Internet software used by the public to apply for licenses, participate in auctions for spectrum, and maintain license information. In this mission, FCC has a `help desk' that answers questions related to these systems as well as resetting and/or issuing user passwords for access to these systems. The form currently is available on the Web site
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 Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 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 OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before January 11, 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 contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page
On September 17, 2015, by Report and Order, FCC 15-118, the Commission amended the Contest Rule to permit broadcasters to meet their obligation to disclose contest material terms on an Internet Web site in lieu of making broadcast announcements. Under the amended Contest Rule, broadcasters are required to (i) announce the relevant Internet Web site address on air the first time the audience is told about the contest and periodically thereafter; (ii) disclose the material contest terms fully and accurately on a publicly accessible Internet Web site, establishing a link or tab to such terms through a link or tab on the announced Web site's home page, and ensure that any material terms disclosed on such a Web site conform in all substantive respects to those mentioned over the air; (iii) maintain contest material terms online for at least thirty days after the contest has ended; and (v) announce on air that the material terms of a contest have changed (where that is the case) within 24 hours of the change in terms on a Web site, and periodically thereafter, and to direct consumers to the Web site to review the changes.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice 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 9, 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.
The system of records notice (SORN), FCC/MB-1, “Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcast Stations,” which was approved on December 21, 2009 (74 FR 59978) covers the collection, purposes(s), storage, safeguards, and disposal of the PII that individual respondents may submit on FCC Form 323. FCC Form 323 is drafting a privacy statement to inform applicants (respondents) of the Commission's need to obtain the information and the protections that the FCC has in place to protect the PII.
FRNs are assigned to applicants who complete FCC Form 160 (OMB Control No. 3060-0917). Form 160 requires applicants for FRNs to provide their Taxpayer Information Number (TIN) and/or Social Security Number (SSN). The FCC's electronic CORES Registration System then provides each registrant with a FCC Registration Number (FRN), which identifies the registrant in his/her subsequent dealings with the FCC. This is done to protect the individual's privacy. The Commission maintains a SORN, FCC/OMD-9, “Commission Registration System (CORES)” to cover the collection, purpose(s), storage, safeguards, and disposal of the PII that individual respondents may submit on FCC Form 160. FCC Form 160 includes a privacy statement to inform applicants (respondents) of the Commission's need
Also, Licensees and Permittees of commercial AM, FM, or full power television stations must file Form 323 following the consummation of a transfer of control or an assignment of a commercial AM, FM, or full power television station license or construction permit; a Permittee of a new commercial AM, FM or full power television broadcast station must file Form 323 within 30 days after the grant of the construction permit; and a Permittee of a new commercial AM, FM, or full power television broadcast station must file Form 323 to update the initial report or to certify the continuing accuracy and completeness of the previously filed report on the date that the Permittee applies for a license to cover the construction permit.
In the case of organizational structures that include holding companies or other forms of indirect ownership, a separate FCC Form 323 must be filed for each entity in the organizational structure that has an attributable interest in the Licensee if the filing is a nonbiennial filing or a reportable interest in the Licensee if the filing is a biennial filing.
We are requesting the three year extension of this information collection.
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 9, 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.
(2) Any applicant for a new permanent base or fixed station authorization to be located on the islands of Puerto Rico, Desecheo, Mona, Vieques, and Culebra, or for a modification of an existing authorization which would change the frequency, power, antenna height, directivity, or location of a station on these islands and would increase the likelihood of the authorized facility causing interference, shall notify the Interference Office, Arecibo Observatory, HC3 Box 53995, Arecibo, Puerto Rico 00612, in writing or electronically, of the technical parameters of the proposal. Applicants may wish to consult interference guidelines, which will be provided by Cornell University. Applicants who choose to transmit information electronically should email to:
(i) The notification to the Interference Office, Arecibo Observatory shall be made prior to, or simultaneously with, the filing of the application with the Commission. The notification shall state the geographical coordinates of the antenna (NAD-83 datum), antenna height above ground, ground elevation at the antenna, antenna directivity and gain, proposed frequency and FCC Rule Part, type of emission, and effective radiated power.
(ii) After receipt of such applications, the Commission will allow the Arecibo Observatory a period of 20 days for comments or objections in response to the notification indicated. The applicant will be required to make reasonable efforts to resolve or mitigate any potential interference problem with the Arecibo Observatory and to file either an amendment to the application or a modification application, as appropriate. The Commission shall determine whether an applicant has satisfied its responsibility to make reasonable efforts to protect the Observatory from interference.
47 CFR 73.1125(d)(2) requires licensees to receive written authority to locate a main studio outside the locations specified in paragraph (a) or (c) of this section for the first time must be obtained from the Audio Division, Media Bureau for AM and FM stations, or the Video Division for TV and Class A television stations before the studio may be moved to that location. Where the main studio is already authorized at a location outside those specified in paragraph (a) or (c) of this section, and the licensee or permittee desires to specify a new location also located outside those locations, written authority must also be received from the Commission prior to the relocation of the main studio. Authority for these changes may be requested by filing a letter with an explanation of the proposed changes with the appropriate division. Licensees or permittees should also be aware that the filing of such a letter request does not imply approval of the relocation request, because each request is addressed on a case-by-case basis. A filing fee is required for commercial AM, FM, TV or Class A TV licensees or permittees filing a letter request under the section (see Sec. 1.1104 of this chapter).
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
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 9, 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.
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 9, 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.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10420 BankEast, Knoxville, Tennessee (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of BankEast (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 10357 Rosemount National Bank, Rosemount, Minnesota (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Rosemount National Bank (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective 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 34.6, 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.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10479 Central Arizona Bank, Scottsdale, Arizona (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Central Arizona Bank (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-
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 34.6, 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 Maritime Commission.
December 16, 2015; 10:00 a.m.
800 N. Capitol Street NW., First Floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC.
The first portion of the meeting will be held in Open Session; the second in Closed Session.
Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, (202) 523-5725.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than December 28, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
1.
This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 2015-30856) published on page 76287 of the issue for Tuesday, December 8, 2015.
Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta heading, the entry for Seacoast Banking Corporation of Florida, Stuart, Florida, is revised to read as follows:
1.
Comments on this application must be received by January 4, 2016.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project:
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments on this notice must be received by January 11, 2016.
Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395-6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by email at
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
Proposed Renewal of an Existing Project: OMB Control Number 0935-0203.
The Registry of Patient Registries (RoPR) is a web-based application, and does not require users to submit any type of paper form.
The RoPR collects patient registry data in two (2) ways: Users are able to enter information into the web-based system manually, or use an automated upload feature.
Information being collected in the RoPR Record is visible to the public and patient registries visiting the RoPR Web site, and is available for public use in this capacity.
The RoPR system provides email notification to registry holders informing them on an annual basis of the need to update basic statistics and contact information, but it is the responsibility of the registry holder to update the information.
If a Registry Profile has not been reviewed and updated to the RoPR search site within four (4) years, it is archived.
As of August 8, 2015, the RoPR has 138 patient registries listed.
Patient registries have received significant attention and funding in recent years. Similar to controlled studies, patient registries represent some burden to patients (
By creating a central point of collection for information about all patient registries in the United States, the RoPR furthers AHRQ's goals by making information regarding quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness of health services (and patient registries in particular) more readily available in a central location.
This research has the following goals:
(1) Maintaining and updating the RoPR database system to be compatible with ClinicalTrials.gov; meeting the following objectives:
a. Providing a searchable database of patient registries in the United States (to promote collaboration, reduce redundancy, and improve transparency);
b. Facilitating the use of common data fields and definitions in similar health conditions (to improve opportunities for sharing, comparing, and linkage) and free-text search field for highlighting information specific to an individual registry;
c. Providing a public repository of searchable summary results (including results from registries that have not yet been published in the peer-reviewed literature);
d. Offering a search tool to locate existing data that researchers can request for use in new studies; and
e. Serving as a recruitment tool for researchers and patients interested in participating in patient registries.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor L&M Policy Research and Quintiles, a sub-contractor to L&M, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research and disseminate information on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of health care services and with respect to database development. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (8).
To achieve the goals of this project, the following data collections will be implemented:
(1) Collect information from users who populate the RoPR database system, which will achieve all of the above goals.
(2) There are tentative plans for a user satisfaction survey to be enabled within the RoPR system, in the second quarter of 2016. The purpose of this survey is to obtain user/stakeholder feedback to evaluate priorities for future enhancements. Its full nature and design is in the concept stage still and so is not part of the Estimated Annual Respondent Burden. However, for the purpose of full disclosure, plans for the survey are being disclosed in this notice.
The purpose and the use of the RoPR is to provide a readily available public resource strictly for patient registries, following the model of ClinicalTrials.gov, allowing for the increased availability and efficacy of patient registries. The information being collected in the RoPR Record is visible to the public visiting the RoPR Web site, and is readily available for public use. The RoPR is an ongoing data collection initiative.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondent's time to participate in the RoPR. Between July 2014 and June 2015, 59 new respondents had entered their RoPR record, utilizing either a manual or electronic upload data entry method.
Each respondent need enter his or her new RoPR record only once, and this process is estimated to take 45 minutes. The RoPR system sends an automated reminder to any registry owner who has not updated his or her RoPR record in the past year. An estimated 57.25% (79 records) of all RoPR records were
In February 2015, Quintiles conducted a knowledge transfer webinar for registry contacts learn how to enter new records into the RoPR. As a result of the knowledge gained during these processes, it is estimated that it takes users 45 minutes to manually enter a new RoPR record; 15 minutes to upload a new RoPR record (an average of 30 minutes using either method). It takes 15 minutes for a person to review and make updates to an existing RoPR record. The total respondent burden is estimated to be a maximum of 64 hours annually.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated cost burden associated with the respondent's time to participate in the RoPR. The total cost burden to respondents is estimated at an average of $1,799.60 annually.
In order to highlight patient registry concerns about using the RoPR system and turning user feedback into future system maintenance and upgrade initiatives (increasing the usability of the RoPR and lowering the burden of entering patient registry information), plans for a voluntary user satisfaction survey are being considered for 2Q 2016. Its full nature and design is in the concept stage. Therefore, this survey is not part of the Estimated Annualized Respondent Hourly/Cost Burden noted in Exhibits 1 and 2.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project:
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments on this notice must be received by January 11, 2016.
Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395-6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by email at
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
This is a new activity of AHRQ's Evidence-based Practice Center Program.
AHRQ's Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Program develops evidence reports and technology assessments on topics relevant to clinical and other health care organization and delivery issues—specifically those that are common, expensive, and/or significant for the Medicare and Medicaid populations. For example recent reviews have focused on clinical conditions, such as “Treatment of Nonmetastatic Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer”; health delivery topics such as “Management Strategies to Reduce Psychiatric Admissions”; and specific technologies such as “Imaging Techniques for Treatment Evaluation for Metastatic Breast Cancer.” These evidence reports include systematic reviews and technical briefs, and provide an essential foundation from which to understand what we know from existing research and what critical research gaps remain. These reports, reviews, and technology assessments are based on rigorous, comprehensive syntheses and analyses of the scientific literature on topics. EPC reports and assessments emphasize explicit and detailed documentation of methods, rationale, and assumptions. EPC reports are conducted in accordance with an established policy on financial and nonfinancial interests. These scientific syntheses may include meta-analyses and cost analyses.
The EPC Program supports AHRQ's mission by synthesizing and disseminating the available research as a “science partner” with private and public organizations in their efforts to improve the quality, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care. The EPC Program is a trusted source of rigorous, comprehensive, and unbiased evidence reviews for stakeholders. The resulting evidence reports and technology assessments are used by Federal and State agencies, private-sector professional societies, health delivery systems, providers, payers, and others committed to evidence-based health care. These end users may use EPC Program evidence reports to inform policy decisions, clinical practice guidelines, and other health care decisions.
EPC research has the following goals:
○ Use research methods to gather knowledge on the effectiveness of certain treatments for specific medical conditions, both published and unpublished, to evaluate the quality of research studies and the evidence from these studies.
○ Promote the use of evidence in health care decision making to improve health care and health.
○ Identify research gaps to inform future research investments.
The Institute of Medicine standards for quality systematic reviews include an assessment of publication bias through the identification of unpublished studies. This is an important source for bias which could affect the nature and direction of research findings. Identifying and including the results of these additional unpublished studies may provide a more complete and accurate assessment of an intervention's effect on outcomes. An important way to identify unpublished studies is through requests to medical device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and other intervention developers.
The proposed project involves sending a request letter to relevant medical device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies and other intervention developers to invite them to submit unpublished studies or other scientific information to the EPC Program Web site, with one request per systematic review topic. Because research on each topic must be completed in a timely manner in order for it to be useful, the collections are never ongoing—there is one request and collection per topic. Investigators in the EPC Program will review the information and assess potential risk of bias from both published and unpublished studies and its impact on the EPC Program's findings. AHRQ believes the display of these assessments in the systematic review's evidence tables will improve the response and submission rates of industry stakeholders by informing the health care community of the impact of potential bias on the research conclusions, and for health care decision making.
This activity is being conducted by AHRQ's EPC Program through its contractor, the Scientific Resource Center (SRC), pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care and to disseminate government-funded research relevant to comparative clinical effectiveness research. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a); 42 U.S.C. 299b-37(a).
To achieve the goals of this project the following data collections will be implemented:
• Online Submission Form Instrument. This information is collected for the purposes of providing supplemental evidence and data for systematic reviews (SEADS). The online submission form (OSF) collects data from respondents on their organization name, their product's name, and whether they are providing all information on requested studies characteristic of the review in progress. This happens following receipt of a request letter from the SRC. These requests will be sent to relevant sponsors of preventive and treatment interventions (
The EPC Program, through the SRC, currently uses a
The additional use of direct requests to relevant organizations would improve the Program's ability to obtain this information. Contacting intervention sponsors for missing and potentially unidentified studies could improve the impact of research efforts and downstream dissemination efforts and could positively impact the health of individuals, burdened by poor health along with their supporting communities. Including information about response data to these requests to more accurately characterize the
The proposed project does not duplicate other available sources of this information. Available study registries and databases may not be complete to sufficiently inform the Program's research.
The purpose of SEADS requests is not to collect generalizable data, but to supplement the published and grey literature searches EPC investigators are conducting. Furthermore, considering the evidence and data included in responses collected from industry stakeholders, an assessment pertaining to the completeness of the evidence-base will be produced. This, AHRQ believes, will increase the value of AHRQ's research reviews to end users and potentially provide stakeholders a better understanding of how their submissions are used.
Exhibit 1 presents estimates of the reporting burden hours for the data collection efforts. Time estimates are based on pilot testing of materials and what can reasonably be requested of respondents. The number of respondents listed in “Number of respondents per SEADS request” of Exhibit 1 reflects a projected 80% response rate.
Online Submission Form: A form for submitting scientific evidence and data related to medical interventions sponsored by organizations and individuals such as pharmaceutical companies and independent researchers. The form has three required fields: The organization's name, the intervention in question, and whether the information they provide is all the information they know to exist. They may upload documents and they are also provided a data entry form if they wish to offer greater details on their studies.
An Optional Data Entry Form is available as an alternative to the Online Submission form. The time requirements for response would be same as the Online Submission Form.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted 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 notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) 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; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), (OMB No. 0920-0950, expires 11/30/2016)—Revision—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k), as amended, authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through NCHS, shall collect statistics on the extent and nature of illness and disability; environmental, social and other health hazards; and determinants of health of the population of the United States.
The National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) have been conducted periodically between 1970 and 1994, and continuously since 1999 by the National Center for Health Statistics, CDC. Annually, approximately 14,410 respondents participate in some aspect of the full survey. Up to 3,500 additional persons might participate in tests of procedures, special studies, or methodological studies (Table 1). Participation in NHANES is completely voluntary and confidential. A three-year approval is requested.
NHANES programs produce descriptive statistics which measure the health and nutrition status of the general population. Through the use of physical examinations, laboratory tests, and interviews NHANES studies the relationship between diet, nutrition and health in a representative sample of the United States. NHANES monitors the prevalence of chronic conditions and risk factors. NHANES data are used to produce national reference data on height, weight, and nutrient levels in the blood. Results from more recent NHANES can be compared to findings reported from previous surveys to monitor changes in the health of the U.S. population over time. NCHS collects personal identification information. Participant level data items will include basic demographic information, name, address, social security number, Medicare number and participant health information to allow for linkages to other data sources such as the National Death Index and data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
A variety of agencies sponsor data collection components on NHANES. To keep burden down, NCHS cycles in and out various components. The 2015-2016 NHANES physical examination includes the following components: Oral glucose tolerance test (ages 12 and older), anthropometry (all ages), 24-hour dietary recall (all ages), physician's examination (all ages, blood pressure is collected here), oral health examination (ages 1 and older), hearing (ages 20-59), dual X-ray absorptiometry (total body composition ages 6-59 and osteoporosis, vertebral fractures and aortic calcification ages 40 and older).
While at the examination center additional interview questions are asked (6 and older), a second 24-hour dietary recall (all ages) is scheduled to be conducted by phone 3-10 days later, and an appointment is made to return to the MEC to begin a 24-hour urine collection (one-half sample of ages 20- 69). In 2014, a 24-hour urine collection was added to the NHANES protocol to better understand sodium intake and provide a population baseline for use in monitoring trends in sodium intake in the future. In 2015, FDA is scheduled to implement a plan to promote broad, gradual reduction of added sodium in the food supply. One half of those successfully completing the initial collection will be asked to complete a second 24-hour urine. After completing the 24-hour urine participants are asked to provide 2 home urine collections (first morning and an evening) and mail them back. The urines collected in the morning and evening will be compared to the 24-hour urine collection.
NHANES also plans to conduct a waist circumference methodology study. The study population will be NHANES participants aged 20 and over who participate in the body measurements component in the Mobile Examination Center (MEC).
The bio-specimens collected for laboratory tests include urine, blood, vaginal and penile swabs, oral rinses and household water collection. Serum, plasma and urine specimens are stored for future testing if the participant consents.
The following major examination or laboratory items, that had been included in the 2013-2014 NHANES, were cycled out for NHANES 2015-2016: Physical activity monitor, taste and smell component and upper body muscle strength (grip test).
Most sections of the NHANES interviews provide self-reported information to be used either in concert with specific examination or laboratory content, as independent prevalence estimates, or as covariates in statistical analysis (
NHANES data users include the U.S. Congress; numerous Federal agencies such as other branches of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the United States Department of Agriculture; private groups such as the American Heart Association; schools of public health; and private businesses. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by February 9, 2016.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep
1.
2.
3.
In accordance with Title 41 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Section 102-3.65(a), notice is hereby given that the Charter for the PUBMED CENTRAL NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PUBMED) was renewed for an additional two-year period on December 8, 2015.
It is determined that the PUBMED is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the National Institutes of Health by law, and that these duties can best be performed through the advice and counsel of this group.
Inquiries may be directed to Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 1000, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (Mail Code 4875), Telephone (301) 496-2123, or
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the meeting of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB).
Under authority 42 U.S.C. 217a, Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, the Department of Health and Human Services established the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) to provide advice regarding federal oversight of dual use research—defined as legitimate biological research that generates information and technologies that could be misused to pose a biological threat to public health and/or national security. The NSABB is currently charged with providing formal recommendations to the United States Government on a conceptual approach for the evaluation of proposed gain-of-function studies.
The meeting will be open to the public and will also be webcast as space will be limited. Persons planning to attend or view via the webcast may pre-register online using the link provided below or by calling Palladian Partners, Inc. (Contact: Ida Donner at 301-650-8660). Online and telephone registration will close at 12:00 p.m. Eastern on January 4, 2016. After that time, attendees may register onsite on the day of the meeting. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should indicate these requirements upon registration on or prior to January 4.
In addition, interested persons may file written comments at any time with the Board via an email sent to
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxis, 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. Please visit the NIH Visitor Security page for important security and campus access information.
Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Big Data to Knowledge Multi-Council Working Group.
The teleconference meeting will be open to the public as indicated below. 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.
Name of Working Group: Big Data to Knowledge Multi-Council Working Group.
Date: January 11, 2015.
Open: 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Agenda: Discussion will review current Big Data to Knowledge (BD2K) activities and newly proposed BD2K initiatives.
Place: Teleconference. This meeting is open to the public but is being held by teleconference only. No physical meeting location is provided for any interested individuals to listen to committee discussions. Any individual interested in listening to the meeting discussions must call: 1-866-692-3158 and use Passcode: 2956317, for access to the meeting.
Closed: 12:10 p.m.-3:30 p.m.
Agenda: Discussion will focus on review of proposed Funding Plans for BD2K Funding Opportunity Announcements.
Place: Teleconference.
Contact Person: Tonya Scott, email:
Information is also available on the Office of the Associate Director for Data Science's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in
Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, and suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to: Ms. Theresa M. Ritta, Chief Real Property Branch, the Department of Health and Human Services, Room 5B-17, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301)-443-2265 (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.
For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a record of decision (ROD) for the final comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Refuge Complex).
You may view or obtain copies of the ROD, the final CCP and final EIS, or other project information by any of the following methods:
Sharon Vaughn, Project Leader, at 719-589-4021 (phone), or Laurie Shannon, Planning Team Leader, 303-236-4317 (phone) or
With this notice, we finalize the CCP process for The San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex. We started this process through a notice in the
The primary planning area for this decision includes Alamosa, Monte Vista, and Baca National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs), which are located in Alamosa, Rio Grande, and Saguache Counties in the San Luis Valley, Colorado.
Wildlife habitat on the three national wildlife refuges includes diverse wetlands and playas, riparian areas, grasslands, and shrublands that provide important resources for many migratory birds, Rocky Mountain elk, deer, and a variety of other resident wildlife. About 18,000 to 20,000 greater sandhill cranes migrate through the valley every spring and fall, where they spend several weeks resting and foraging for food on and around the Monte Vista NWR. The federally endangered southwestern willow flycatcher breeds along the Rio Grande on the Alamosa NWR. Baca NWR has one of two aboriginal (natural) populations of Rio Grande sucker found in the State.
Visitors take part in a variety of wildlife-dependent recreational activities on the Refuge Complex. Every year, the Monte Vista Crane Festival attracts thousands of visitors who come to see sandhill cranes and waterfowl. The Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs are also open for waterfowl and limited small game hunting, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and environmental education. As part of this CCP and EIS process, we have considered opening the Baca NWR for similar opportunities.
Over 12,000 years of prehistory and history have been recorded in the San Luis Valley, and all three national wildlife refuges contain significant cultural resources.
In accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1506.6(b)) requirements, this notice announces the availability of the ROD for the final CCP and final EIS for San Luis Valley NWR Complex. We completed a thorough analysis of the environmental, social, and economic considerations associated with our actions. The ROD documents our selection of alternative B, the preferred alternative.
The CCP will guide us in managing and administering the Refuge Complex for the next 15 years. Alternative B, as we described in the final EIS/ROD, is the foundation for the CCP.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Administration Act.
Our final CCP and final EIS (80 FR 48328; August 12, 2015) addressed several issues. To address these, we developed and evaluated the following alternatives: Alternative A—No Action; Alternative B—Wildlife Populations, Strategic Habitat Restoration, and Enhanced Public Uses; Alternative C—Habitat Restoration and Ecological Processes; and Alternative D—Maximize Public Use Opportunities.
After consideration of the more than 1,000 comments that we received on the draft CCP and draft EIS, we have selected alternative B—Wildlife Populations, Strategic Habitat Restoration, and Enhanced Public Uses. It is the alternative that best meets the purposes of the refuges, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the vision and management goals set for the Refuge Complex; and it adheres to Service policies and guidelines. It considers the interests and perspectives of many agencies, organization, tribes, and the public. Additionally, it is the environmentally preferred alternative.
Under alternative B and in cooperation with our partners, we will maintain or restore the composition, structure, and function of the natural and modified habitats within the Refuge Complex. We will consider the ecological site characteristics and wildlife species needs on our Refuge Complex lands by developing sound and sustainable management strategies that preserve and restore ecological (biological) integrity, productivity, and biological diversity. We will apply strategic habitat conservation principles (a structured, science-driven, and adaptive approach) in determining how to best manage our lands for native fish, wildlife, and plant species, with a particular emphasis on migratory birds, waterfowl, and declining species listed under the Endangered Species Act (listed species). Compatible wildlife-dependent public uses will be enhanced and expanded to include all three refuges. We will facilitate the protection, restoration, and conservation of important water resources through partnerships, public education, and stewardship.
In addition to any one method in
• Our Web site:
• Public libraries:
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice.
The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) is publishing this notice in accordance with section 9 of the Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-223) (Settlement Act). The publication of this notice causes the waivers and release of certain claims to become effective as required to implement the Settlement.
This notice is effective December 11, 2015.
Address all comments and requests for additional information to Ruth Thayer, Chair, Hualapai Tribe Water Rights Settlement Negotiation Team, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region, P.O. Box 61470, Boulder City, NV 89006. (702) 293-8426.
The Settlement Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to enter into the Big Sandy River-Planet Ranch Water Rights Settlement Agreement and the Hualapai Tribe Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Agreement, to provide for the lease of certain land located within Planet Ranch on the Bill Williams River in the State of Arizona to benefit the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program, and to provide for the settlement of specific water rights claims in the Bill Williams River watershed in the State of Arizona. The non-federal settling parties submitted a signed settlement agreement to Congress prior to enactment of the Settlement Act (Pub. L. 113-223). The purposes of the Settlement Act are:
(1) To achieve a fair, equitable, and final settlement of certain claims among certain parties to water rights in the Bill Williams River watershed in the State of Arizona for
(A) the Hualapai Tribe (acting on behalf of the Tribe and members of the Tribe); and
(B) the Department of the Interior, acting on behalf of the Department and,
(2) to approve, ratify, and confirm
(A) the Big Sandy River-Planet Ranch Water Rights Settlement Agreement (Big Sandy River-Planet Ranch Agreement) entered into among the Hualapai Tribe, the United States as trustee for the Tribe, the members of the Tribe and allottees, the Secretary of the Interior, the Arizona department of water resources (ADWR), Freeport Minerals Corporation, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, to the extent the Big Sandy River-Planet Ranch Agreement is consistent with the Settlement Act;
(B) the Hualapai Tribe Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Agreement (Hualapai Tribe Agreement) entered into among the Tribe, the United States as trustee for the Tribe, members of the Tribe, the allotees, and the Freeport Minerals Corporation, to the extent the Hualapai Tribe Agreement is consistent with the Settlement Act;
(3) to authorize and direct the Secretary
(A) to execute the duties and obligations of the Secretary under the Big Sandy River-Planet Ranch Agreement, the Hualapai Tribe Agreement, and the Settlement Act;
(B)(i) to remove objections to the applications for the severance and transfer of certain water rights, in partial consideration of the agreement of the parties to impose certain limits on the extent of the use and transferability of the severed and transferred water rights and other water rights; and
(ii) to provide confirmation of those water rights; and
(C) to carry out any other activity necessary to implement the Big Sandy River-Planet Ranch Agreement and the Hualapai Tribe Agreement in accordance with the Settlement Act;
(4) to advance the purposes of the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (Conservation Program);
(5) to secure a long-term lease for a portion of Planet Ranch, along with appurtenant water rights primarily along the Bill Williams River corridor, for use in the Conservation Program;
(6) to bring the leased portion of Planet Ranch into public ownership for the long-term benefit of the Conservation Program; and
(7) to secure from the Freeport Minerals Corporation non-Federal contributions
(A) to support a tribal water supply study necessary for the advancement of a settlement of the claims of the Tribe for rights to Colorado River water; and
(B) to enable the Tribe to secure Colorado River water rights and appurtenant land, increase security of the water rights of the Tribe, and facilitate a settlement of the claims of the Tribe for rights to Colorado River water.
In accordance with section 9 of the Settlement Act, section 11.12(i) of the Amended and Restated Big Sandy River-Planet Ranch Water Rights Settlement Agreement, and section 10.13(i) of the Amended and Restated Hualapai Tribe Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Agreement, I find as follows:
(1)(A) To the extent that the Big Sandy River-Planet Ranch Agreement or the Hualapai Tribe Agreement conflict with the Settlement Act, the applicable agreement has been revised to eliminate the conflict; and
(B) the Big Sandy River-Planet Ranch Agreement, as revised, and the Hualapai Tribe Agreement, as revised, have been executed by all parties to those agreements;
(2) Freeport Minerals Corporation has submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) a conditional amendment of the sever and transfer applications for the Lincoln Ranch water right and amendments to sever and transfer applications for Planet Ranch and Lincoln Ranch water rights consistent with section 4.2.1(ii)(a) of the Big Sandy River-Planet Ranch Agreement;
(3) the Secretary and the Arizona Game and Fish Commission have executed and filed with ADWR a conditional withdrawal of each objection described in section 4(b)(3) of the Settlement Act and as provided in subsections 4.2.1(ii)(b) and 4.2.1(ii)(c) of the Big Sandy River-Planet Ranch Agreement;
(4)(A) ADWR has issued a conditional order approving the sever and transfer applications of Freeport Minerals Corporation; and
(B) all objections to the sever and transfer applications have been (i) conditionally withdrawn; or (ii) resolved in a decision issued by ADWR that is final and nonappealable;
(5) notice has been provided to the parties to the Big Sandy River-Planet Ranch Agreement and the Hualapai Tribe Agreement that the Department has completed the legally required environmental compliance described in section 8;
(6) the steering committee for the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program has approved and authorized the manager of the Conservation Program to execute the lease in the form as set forth in exhibit 2.33 to the Big Sandy River-Planet Ranch Agreement; and
(7) the waivers and releases authorized by section 6 have been executed by the Tribe and the Secretary.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Central Montana Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The Central Montana Resource Advisory Council Meeting will be held January 26-27, 2015 in Great Falls, Montana. The January 26 meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. with a 30-minute public comment period and will adjourn at 5:00 p.m. The January 27 meeting will begin at 8:00 a.m. with a 30-minute public comment period beginning at 10:00 a.m. and will adjourn at 12:00 p.m.
The meetings will be in the Lewis and Clark Interpretive Center Conference Room at 4201 Giant Springs Road, Great Falls, Montana.
Mark Albers, HiLine District Manager, Great Falls Field Office, 1101 15th Street North, Great Falls, MT 59401, (406) 791-7789,
This 15-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of management issues associated
43 CFR 1784.4-2.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of correction, Colorado.
On October 29, 2015, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published a Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey by the Colorado State Office, Lakewood, Colorado [80 FR 66566] which included the following 2 surveys. The plat, in 3 sheets, incorporating the field notes of the dependent resurvey and survey in Townships 50 and 51 North, Range 1 East, New Mexico Principal Meridian, Colorado, and the plat, in 6 sheets, incorporating the field notes of the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 48 North, Range 3 West, New Mexico Principal Meridian, Colorado, both accepted September 30, 2015. This Notice of Correction corrects data errors, and both surveys now have a date of acceptance of November 13, 2015. The BLM Colorado State Office is publishing this notice to inform the public of the intent to officially file the survey plats listed above and afford a proper period of time to protest this action prior to the plat filing. During this time, the plats will be available for review in the BLM Colorado State Office.
Unless there are protests of this action, the filing of the plats described in this notice will happen on January 11, 2016.
BLM Colorado State Office, Cadastral Survey, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, CO 80215-7093.
Randy Bloom, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Colorado, (303) 239-3856.
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Glen Canyon National Recreation Area at the address in this notice by January 11, 2016.
Lindy Mihata, Acting Superintendent, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, P.O. Box 1507, Page, AZ 86040, telephone (928) 608-6200, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Page, AZ. The human remains were removed from Kane County, UT.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Glen Canyon National Recreation Area professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona; Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona; Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians of the Las Vegas Indian Colony, Nevada; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico, & Utah; Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of San Juan); Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes) (formerly Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar City Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes)); Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona; Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico, & Utah; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes”).
The following tribes were invited to consult but did not respond: the Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley (previously listed as the Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation,
On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown site in Kane County, UT. In 1985, the human remains were obtained by National Park Service law enforcement personnel during a drug-related investigation. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1974, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site NA 13255 in Kane County, UT, by a park visitor and subsequently turned over to Glen Canyon National Recreation Area officials. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1975, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site NA 14081 in San Juan County, UT, by a park visitor and subsequently turned over to Glen Canyon National Recreation Area officials. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1975, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site NA 13482 in Kane County, UT, during a legally authorized archeological survey project. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on osteological analysis and archeological context.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of four individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico, & Utah; and San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley (previously listed as the Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation, California); Bishop Paiute Tribe (previously listed as the Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, California); Bridgeport Indian Colony (previously listed as the Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony of California); Burns Paiute Tribe (previously listed as the Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon); Fort Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, California; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona; Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians of the Las Vegas Indian Colony, Nevada; Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Tribe (previously listed as the Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community of the Lone Pine Reservation, California); Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada; Moapa Band of Paiute Indians of the Moapa River Indian Reservation, Nevada; Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes) (formerly Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar City Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes)); Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony, Nevada; Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada; San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona; Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada; Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe of the Benton Paiute Reservation, California; Walker River Paiute Tribe of the Walker River Reservation, Nevada; and Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony & Campbell Ranch, Nevada.
• Other credible lines of evidence, including relevant and authoritative governmental determinations and information gathered during government-to-government consultation from subject matter experts, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Hopi Tribe of Arizona.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to the Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley (previously listed as the Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation, California); Bishop Paiute Tribe (previously listed as the Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, California); Bridgeport Indian Colony (previously listed as the Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony of California); Burns Paiute Tribe (previously listed as the Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon); Fort Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, California; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona; Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians of the Las Vegas Indian Colony, Nevada; Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Tribe (previously listed as the Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community of the Lone Pine Reservation, California); Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada; Moapa Band of Paiute
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Lindy Mihata, Acting Superintendent, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, P.O. Box 1507, Page, AZ 86040, telephone (928) 608-6200, email
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes and The Invited Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes, has determined that the cultural item listed in this notice meets the definitions of sacred object and object of cultural patrimony. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe not identified in this notice that wish to claim this cultural item should submit a written request to the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural item to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe not identified in this notice that wish to claim the cultural item should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History Foundation at the address in this notice by January 11, 2016.
James R. Gilson, Vice President and General Counsel, Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History Foundation, 900 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90007, telephone (213) 763-3305, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005 of the intent to repatriate a cultural item under the control of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History that meets the definitions of a sacred object and of an object of cultural patrimony under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural item. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Between 1895 and 1915, a headdress made from cotton cord, red woolen fabric, and feathers came into the possession of Francis (Frank) Ammann, Sr., who was a baker and operated a dry goods store in Needles, CA. Upon his death, the headdress passed to his son, Dr. F.X. Amman, Jr., who donated the headdress to the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History in 1934. In 2002, the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History lent the headdress to the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California for exhibition, where it remains today.
Based on research and consultation with the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California, and other Chemehuevi elders and scholars of Chemehuevi culture and history, the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural
The Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History's consultations included communication with the three Federally-recognized Chemehuevi tribes: Chemehuevi Indian Tribe of the Chemehuevi Reservation, California; Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Indian Reservation, Arizona and California; and Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California. On July 31, 2015, the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History received a letter dated March 31, 2015, and signed by the tribal chairmen of all three Federally-recognized Chemehuevi tribes stating the three tribes “without exception, enter into this agreement with full consensus, that it is our stated and formal request that the Chemehuevi Headdress . . . be repatriated . . . to the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians.”
Officials of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History have determined that
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C), the single
• In addition, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(D), the single
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the single
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe not identified in this notice that wish to claim this cultural item should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to James R. Gilson, Vice President and General Counsel, Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History Foundation, 900 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90007, telephone (213) 763-3305, email
The Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying the following Federally-recognized tribes that this notice has been published: Chemehuevi Indian Tribe of the Chemehuevi Reservation, California; Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Indian Reservation, Arizona and California; and the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the address in this notice by January 11, 2016.
Anna Pardo, Museum Program Manager/NAGPRA Coordinator, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 6084, Reston, VA 20191, telephone (703) 390-6343, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC, and in the physical custody of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University (Peabody Museum), Cambridge, MA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Burns Township, Shiawassee County, MI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan.
In 1915, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were
Peabody Museum records describe the site three miles northwest of Byron, MI, as “Mound 1” and “Ojibwa Historic Burial Site, Keetchewaundaugnink Reservation.” The reservation encompasses a village site of the same name that was established circa 1810. The reservation itself was established by the Treaty of Saginaw in September 1819, and ceded in 1837 after a small pox epidemic. The presence of mounds and graves near the Keetchewaundaugnink village site are known from historic accounts. An early written history of Shiawassee County indicates that a large cemetery was known to be associated with the Keetchewaundaugnink village. Consultation with representatives of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan indicates that the Keetchewaundaugnink Reservation was an early reservation of the Saginaw Chippewa in the historic period.
Officials of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the three objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Anna Pardo, Museum Program Manager/NAGPRA Coordinator, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 6084, Reston, VA 20191, telephone (703) 390-6343, email
The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible for notifying the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
San Francisco State University, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes, has determined that the cultural items in this notice meet the definition of sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony and repatriation to the Indian tribes stated below may occur if no additional claimants come forward. Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the cultural items may contact San Francisco State University.
Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes it has a cultural affiliation with the cultural items should contact San Francisco State University at the address below by January 11, 2016.
Jeffrey Boland Fentress, San Francisco State University NAGPRA Program, c/o Department of Anthropology, San Francisco, CA 94132, telephone (415) 338-3075.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items in the possession of San Francisco State University (SFSU) that meet the definition of sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
On an unknown date, a basket (item 1-2-6/20; 1-3-24/72; 1-3-(38)/5; I-III-15) was donated to the San Francisco State University (SFSU) Treganza Anthropology Museum. There are no records at the Treganza Anthropology Museum concerning the acquisition of this item. The three-rod, closed coiled basket has a globular bowl, measures 13 cm in height and 23 cm in diameter, is made of willow, sedge, bulrush root, and bracken fern, and is decorated with feathers, trade beads, and clam shell disk beads. The use of trade beads to ornament a three-rod coiled basket was characteristic of Dry Creek Pomo weavers. Based on consultation with the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians, California (previously listed as the Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California) and other ethnographic research, the basket is an object of cultural patrimony, identified as a gift basket created for an important occasion, and is an item of cultural patrimony.
On an unknown date, a basket (item 1-3-/80; (A73)) was donated to the SFSU Treganza Anthropology Museum. There are no records at the Treganza Anthropology Museum concerning the acquisition of this item. The closed twined basket has a globular bowl, measures 25 cm in height and 34 cm in diameter, and is made of willow, sedge, conifer root, and bracken fern root. The specific design techniques and elements used in this basket were characteristic of Dry Creek Pomo weavers. Based on consultation with the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians, California (previously listed as the Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California), and other ethnographic research, the object is a cooking basket used with the traditional stone boiling
On an unknown date, a basket (item 1-3-24/16; I-III-48; 1-3 (38)/16) was donated to the SFSU Treganza Anthropology Museum. There are no records at the Treganza Anthropology Museum concerning the acquisition of this item. The closed twined, bowl shaped basket, measures 30 cm in height and 43 cm in diameter, and was made of willow, sedge, conifer root and redbud. The specific design techniques and elements used in this basket were characteristic of Dry Creek Pomo weavers. Based on consultation with the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians, California (previously listed as the Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California), and other ethnographic research, the object is a cooking basket used with the traditional stone boiling technique to cook food for the entire tribe, and is an object of cultural patrimony.
On an unknown date, a basket (item 1-3-24/5; I-III-16; I-III (38)/5) was donated to the SFSU Treganza Anthropology Museum. There are no records at the Treganza Anthropology Museum concerning the acquisition of this item. The three-rod, closed coiled basket has a flared bowl, measures 14 cm in height and 29 cm in diameter, made with willow, sedge, and bulrush, and is decorated with woodpecker feathers, clam shell disk beads, and white glass trade beads. The use of trade beads to ornament a three-rod coiled basket and the flat-bottomed, flared shape of the basket were characteristic of Dry Creek Pomo weavers. Based on consultation with the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians, California (previously listed as the Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California), and other ethnographic research, the object is a washing basin used in a ceremony welcoming an newborn child into the world, and is a sacred object and an object of cultural patrimony.
In 1970, Margaret Hindes Molarsky donated a basket (item 1-3-24/18; 1-3-25/18; 70-1-2) to the SFSU Treganza Anthropology Museum. The single-rod, closed coiled beaded basket has a globular bowl, measures 5 cm in height and 15 cm in diameter, is made of willow and sedge, and is decorated with glass beads. The specific design techniques and elements used in this basket were characteristic of Dry Creek Pomo weavers. Based on consultation with the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians, California (previously listed as the Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California), and other ethnographic research, the object is a gift basket created for an important occasion and is an item of cultural patrimony.
On an unknown date, a basket (item 1-3-24/64; I-III-6; I-III-3) was donated to the SFSU Treganza Anthropology Museum. There are no records at the Treganza Anthropology Museum concerning the acquisition of this item. The open-lattice, twined basket is bowl shaped, measures 16 cm in height and 25.5 cm in diameter, and is made with willow, sedge, and redbud. The lattice-twining with redbud design elements was characteristic of Dry Creek Pomo weavers. Based on consultation with the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians, California (previously listed as the Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California), and other ethnographic research, the object is a storage basket made to store acorns or other dried foods for the entire community, and is an item of cultural patrimony.
On an unknown date, a basket (item 1-3-24/L; 1-53629) was donated to the SFSU Treganza Anthropology Museum. There are no records at the Treganza Anthropology Museum concerning acquisition of this item. The three-rod, closed coiled feathered basket is bowl shaped, measures 6 cm in height and 15.5 cm in diameter, is made with willow, sedge, bulrush, and dogbane, and is decorated with white feathers, clam shell disk beads, and abalone pendants. The Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians believed the basket was the work of a Dry Creek Pomo traditional healer and visionary named Wala-Wala. Based on consultation with the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians, California (previously listed as the Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California), and other ethnographic research, the basket was used during healing ceremonies and is a sacred object and an object of cultural patrimony.
In 1976, Margaret Hindes Molarsky donated a basket (item 76-07-1) to the SFSU Treganza Anthropology Museum. The unusual multi-technique twined basket has a flared bowl shape, measures 34.5 cm in height and 43 cm in diameter, and is made with a willow and redbud. The design techniques and elements used in this basket were characteristic of Dry Creek Pomo weavers. Based on consultation with the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians, California (previously listed as the Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California) and other ethnographic research, the object is a burden basket created to carry food for the entire tribe, and is an object of cultural patrimony.
Officials of the San Francisco State University have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C), the two sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony described above are specific ceremonial objects needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents and these cultural items are also objects of cultural patrimony that have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself, rather than property owned by an individual.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(D), the six objects of cultural patrimony described above have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself, rather than property owned by an individual.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the eight baskets and the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians.
Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the sacred objects and the objects of cultural patrimony should contact Jeffrey Boland Fentress, San Francisco State University NAGPRA Program, c/o Department of Anthropology, San Francisco, CA 94132, telephone (415) 338-3075 before January 11, 2016. Repatriation of the sacred objects and the objects of cultural patrimony to the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
The San Francisco State University is responsible for notifying the Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Big Valley Rancheria, California; Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California; Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California; Elem Indian Colony of Pomo Indians of the Sulphur Bank Rancheria, CA; Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California; Guidiville Rancheria of California; Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, California; Hopland Band of Pomo Indians, California (formerly Hopland Band of Pomo Indians of the Hopland Rancheria, California); Cahto Tribe of Laytonville Rancheria, California; Kashia Band of Pomo Indians of the Stewarts Point Rancheria, California; Koi Nation of
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Hudson Museum, University of Maine has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Hudson Museum, University of Maine. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Hudson Museum, University of Maine at the address in this notice by January 11, 2016.
Gretchen Faulkner, Hudson Museum, University of Maine, 5746 Collins Center for the Arts, Orono, ME 04469-5747, telephone (207) 581-1904, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Hudson Museum, Orono, ME. The human remains were removed from present-day Kiowa County, CO.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Marcella Sorg, Ph.D., D-ABGFA Forensic Anthropologist and Hudson Museum professional staff, in consultation with representatives of the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma).
In the 1860s, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed by Colonel Henry Inman from the Smoky Hill Reservation, in what was then Kansas. Based on additional research undertaken by the Hudson Museum, it would appear that the human remains were probably removed from the site of the Sand Creek Massacre in present day Kiowa County, CO. The human remains represent one individual and consist of a partial cranium of a male age 25-40. The human remains came to the Hudson Museum as a transfer from the former Portland Museum of Natural History in 1970. They were given catalog number AMUa27640. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the Hudson Museum, University of Maine have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on an analysis by a forensic anthropologist.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma) and the Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma) and the Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remain may be to the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma) and the Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Gretchen Faulkner, Hudson Museum, University of Maine, 5746 Collins Center for the Arts, Orono, ME 04469-5746, telephone (207) 581-1904, email
The Hudson Museum, University of Maine is responsible for notifying the Cheyenne and Arapahoe Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma) and the Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Correction.
The Maxey Museum (formerly Northwest Museum), Whitman College, has corrected an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Maxey Museum at the address in this notice by January 11, 2016.
Dr. Lisa Perfetti, Maxey Museum, Whitman College, 345 Boyer Avenue, Walla Walla, WA 99362, telephone (509) 527-5187, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the correction of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Maxey Museum, Walla Walla, WA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Sheep Island and Canoe Island, Benton County, WA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
This notice corrects the minimum number of individuals and number of associated funerary objects published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the
In the
In 1949, human remains representing a minimum of 14 individuals were removed from site 45BN55, Sheep Island, Site 17 and Canoe Island, Site 13, Benton County, WA, by Thomas R. Garth, Jr. and accessioned into the museum (Cat Whit-J-028, 034, 057, 060, 063-072, 107-108, 0114, 0116 Whit-X-0003, 0004, 0007, 0061).
In the
The 79 associated funerary objects are 46 light red beads, 11 pestle fragments, 2 flint scrapers, 1 rock with ochre, 1 mud-dauber's nest, 1 sandstone smoother, 1 bag of charcoal, 2 cranial faunal remains, 1 lot of seven faunal remains, 1 lot of nine faunal remains, 9 faunal remains, 2 petrified bone awls, and 1 chert flake (Cat. Whit-J-2, 3, 5, 18, 19, 23 to 25, 133, Whit-X-0003, 0004, 0005, 0060, 0062, Whit-J-0110, 0111, 0112, 0113, 0115, 0117, 0118, 0119, 0120, 0121).
In the
Sheep Island and Canoe Island were important burial islands for the
In the
Officials of the Northwest Museum, Whitman College have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of a minimum of 24 individuals of Native American ancestry.
In the
Officials of the Northwest Museum, Whitman College also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 105 objects described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Lisa Perfetti, Maxey Museum, Whitman College, 345 Boyer Avenue, Walla Walla, WA 99362, telephone (509) 527-5187, email
The Maxey Museum is responsible for notifying the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Field Museum of Natural History has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Field Museum of Natural History. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Field Museum of Natural History at the address in this notice by January 11, 2016.
Helen Robbins, Repatriation Director, Field Museum of Natural History, 1400 S. Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605, telephone (312) 665-7317, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from a location on Bonito Creek and a cave on the East Fork of the White River (8 miles above Fort Apache) on the Fort Apache Reservation, AZ.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Field Museum of Natural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Cocopah Tribe of Arizona; Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Nevada and Utah; Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona; Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of Arizona, California & Nevada; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona; Kewa Pueblo (formerly Pueblo of Santo Domingo, New Mexico); Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians of the Las Vegas Indian Colony, Nevada; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico Moapa Band of Paiute Indians of the Moapa River Indian Reservation, Nevada; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Nation of Utah (Washakie); Ohkay Owingeh (formerly Pueblo of San Juan, New Mexico); Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah; Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona; Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; Ramah Navajo Chapter; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona; Yavapai-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation, Arizona; Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico. Key consultation with the tribes listed took place between January and July of 2015. This consultation included sending a letter inviting THPOs, NAGPRA Representatives and other appropriate tribal representatives to consult as well follow-up telephone conversations.
In October 1903, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the area along Bonito Creek on the Fort Apache Reservation in Arizona, and were accessioned by The Field Museum. These human remains were removed by Charles Owen, Assistant Curator of Archaeology at The Field Museum, at some point during his two collecting trips to the reservation in 1901 and 1903. No further provenience or dating information is available. The human remains belong to a child of indeterminate sex between the ages of six and ten. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In October 1903, human remains representing at minimum eight individuals were removed from a cave site on the East Fork of the White River, 8 miles north of Fort Apache on the Fort Apache Reservation in Arizona, and were accessioned by The Field Museum. These human remains were removed by Charles Owen, Assistant Curator of Archaeology at The Field Museum, at some point during his two collecting trips to the reservation in 1901 and 1903. While there is historical information about known cave systems and archaeological work undertaken on the White River, including Owen's for The Field Museum, it is not possible to ascertain from which cave in particular the human remains and associated funerary objects were removed. The cranial human remains present (which have been used to determine the number of individuals) belong to two individuals over the age of 50, one male and one indeterminable, two possible females aged 35 or older, a possible female between the ages of 20 and 40, and three children between the age of four and six, eight and ten, and eight and twelve, respectively. The post-cranial human remains present are commingled and do not necessarily represent additional individuals. The
Officials of The Field Museum have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on Field Museum records and a physical inventory of the collection.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of a minimum of nine individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the four objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (15), the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the tribal land of the White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to the White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Helen Robbins, Repatriation Director, Field Museum of Natural History, 1400 S. Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605, telephone (312) 665-7317, email
The Field Museum is responsible for notifying the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Cocopah Tribe of Arizona; Cocopah Tribe of Arizona; Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Nevada and Utah; Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona; Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of Arizona, California & Nevada; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona; Isleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona; Kewa Pueblo (formerly Pueblo of Santo Domingo, New Mexico); Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians of the Las Vegas Indian Colony, Nevada; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Moapa Band of Paiute Indians of the Moapa River Indian Reservation, Nevada; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Nation of Utah (Washakie); Ohkay Owingeh (formerly Pueblo of San Juan, New Mexico); Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah; Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona; Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; Ramah Navajo Chapter; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona; Yavapai-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation, Arizona; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; correction.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Montezuma Castle National Monument has corrected an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Montezuma Castle National Monument at the address in this notice by January 11, 2016.
Dorothy FireCloud, Superintendent, Montezuma Castle National Monument, P.O. Box 219, Camp Verde, AZ 86322, telephone (928) 567-5276, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the correction of an inventory of human remains and associated
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, Montezuma Castle National Monument.
This notice corrects the minimum number of individuals and number of associated funerary objects published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the
In the
In 1936, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Montezuma Well area in Yavapai County, AZ by the William Back family. The human remains and associated funerary object were donated to Montezuma Castle National Monument in 2014 by a Back family descendant. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is an obsidian projectile point.
In the
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 129 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 84 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dorothy FireCloud, Superintendent, Montezuma Castle National Monument, P.O. Box 219, Camp Verde, AZ 86322, telephone (928) 567-5276, email
Montezuma Castle National Monument is responsible for notifying The Consulted and Invited Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The New York State Museum, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of sacred objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the New York State Museum. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the New York State Museum at the address in this notice by January 11, 2016.
Lisa Anderson, New York State Museum, 3049 Cultural Education Center, Albany, NY 12230, telephone (518) 486-2020, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the New York State Museum, Albany, NY, that meet the definition of sacred objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
In 1898, the New York State Museum acquired three cultural items from members of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma. The three sacred objects are medicine masks donated by Harriet Maxwell Converse of New York City, NY (E-37012, E-37030, E-37621). Museum records indicate the masks are culturally affiliated with the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma.
Consultation with members of the Haudenosaunee Standing Committee on Burial Rules and Regulations has identified the medicine masks as being needed for the practice of traditional Native American religions by present-day adherents. Museum documentation supported by consultation with the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma indicates that these medicine faces are culturally affiliated with the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma.
Officials of the New York State Museum have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C), the three cultural items described above are specific ceremonial objects needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the sacred objects and the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Lisa Anderson, New York State Museum, 3049 Cultural Education Center, Albany, NY 12230 telephone
The New York State Museum is responsible for notifying the Cayuga Nation; Oneida Nation of New York; Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin; Onondaga Nation; Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (previously listed as the St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York); Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as the Seneca Nation of New York); Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma; Tonawanda Band of Seneca (previously listed as the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York); and Tuscarora Nation that this notice has been published.
Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), Interior.
Notice of renewal of an existing Information Collection.
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), ONRR is inviting comments on an information collection request that we have submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This Information Collection Request (ICR) covers the paperwork requirements under title 30,
Submit written comments on or before January 11, 2016.
You may submit your written comments directly to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, by email to
For questions on technical issues, contact Ms. LeeAnn Martin, Reporting & Solid Mineral Services, ONRR, telephone (303) 231-3313, or email at
The Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior is responsible for mineral resource development on Federal and Indian lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The Secretary's responsibility, according to various laws, is to manage mineral resource production from Federal and Indian lands and the OCS, collect the royalties and other mineral revenues due, and distribute the funds collected in accordance with applicable laws. The Secretary also has a trust responsibility to manage Indian lands and seek advice and information from Indian beneficiaries. ONRR performs the minerals revenue management functions for the Secretary and assists the Secretary in carrying out the Department's trust responsibility for Indian lands. Public laws pertaining to mineral leases on Federal Indian lands are available on our Web site at
When a company or an individual enters into a lease to explore, develop, produce, and dispose of minerals from Federal or Indian lands, that company or individual agrees to pay the lessor a share in an amount or value of production from the leased lands. The lessee, or the designee, must report various kinds of information to the lessor relative to the disposition of the leased minerals. Such information is generally available within the records of the lessee or others involved in developing, transporting, processing, purchasing, or selling of such minerals. The information that ONRR collects includes data necessary to ensure that the lessee accurately values and appropriately pays all royalties and other mineral revenues due.
Reporters submit information into the ONRR financial accounting system that includes royalty, rental, bonus, and other payment information; sales volumes and values; and other royalty values. ONRR uses the accounting system to compare production volumes with royalty volumes to verify that companies reported and paid proper royalties for the minerals produced. Additionally, we share the data electronically with the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Tribal and State governments so they can perform their lease management responsibilities.
We use the information collected in this ICR to ensure that companies properly pay royalties based on accurate production accounting on oil, gas, and geothermal resources that they produce from Federal and Indian leases. The requirement to report accurately and timely is mandatory. Please refer to the chart for all reporting requirements and associated burden hours.
Payors (Reporters) must report, according to various regulations, and remit royalties on oil, gas, and geothermal resources that they produced from leases on Federal and Indian lands. ONRR uses the following form for royalty reporting:
Operators (Reporters) must submit, according to various regulations, production reports if they operate a Federal or Indian onshore or offshore oil and gas lease or federally approved unit or communitization agreement. We use the ONRR financial accounting system to track minerals produced from Federal and Indian lands, from the point of production to the point of disposition or royalty determination and/or point of sale. The reporters use the following forms for production accounting and reporting:
We are requesting OMB's approval to continue to collect this information. Not collecting this information would limit the Secretary's ability to discharge the duties of the office and may also result in the loss of royalty payments. Proprietary information submitted is protected, and there are no questions of a sensitive nature included in this information collection. It is mandatory that the reporters submit Forms ONRR-2014, ONRR-4054, and ONRR-4058.
We have not included in our estimates certain requirements that companies perform in the normal course of business, and that ONRR considers usual and customary. We display the estimated annual burden hours by CFR and paragraph in the following chart.
We have identified non-hour costs for this collection of information for the implementation of system changes and new setups in the accounting system. Based on information provided by participants, we estimate that the average total non-hour cost for each participant is approximately $7,200. Since there are an estimated 3,870 respondents, the total estimated non-hour costs are $27,864,000 ($7,200 × 3,870 = $27,864,000). This equates to an annual non-hour cost of $9,288,000 for this ICR renewal. It is important to note that these are one-time costs due to the regulation changes implemented in May of 2015 and are not expected to continue past this ICR renewal period.
Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires each agency to “* * * publish a 60-day notice in the
To comply with the public consultation process, we published a notice in the
If you wish to comment in response to this notice, you may send your comments to the offices listed under the
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Reclamation, the California Tahoe Conservancy (Conservancy), and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency have prepared the final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS/EIS) for the Upper Truckee River and Marsh Restoration Project (Project). The purpose of the Project is to restore natural geomorphic processes and improve ecological functions and values in this lowest reach of the Upper Truckee River and the surrounding marsh and help reduce the river's discharge of nutrients and sediment that diminish Lake Tahoe's clarity.
Reclamation will not make a decision on the proposed action until at least 30 days after the release of the final EIR/EIS/EIS. After the 30-day waiting period, Reclamation will complete a Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD will state the action that will be implemented and will discuss all factors leading to the decision.
Send written correspondence or requests for the document to Scott Carroll,
The final EIR/EIS/EIS is accessible at the following Web sites:
•
•
To request a compact disc of the final EIR/EIS/EIS, please contact Mr. Carroll as indicated above, or call (530) 543-6062. See the
Scott Carroll, California Tahoe Conservancy, at
The approximately 592-acre project area is along the most downstream reaches of the Upper Truckee River and Trout Creek, including their mouths at Lake Tahoe in the City of South Lake Tahoe, within El Dorado County, California. It includes 1.8-miles of the Upper Truckee River as well as the marsh and meadows surrounding the lowest reaches of Trout Creek. The majority of the project area is owned by the Conservancy though the Project does include small areas owned by other public agencies and private landowners.
Four action alternatives (Alternatives 1-4), and the No-Project/No-Action Alternative (Alternative 5), were analyzed in the draft EIR/EIS/EIS. None of the alternatives evaluated in the draft EIR/EIS/EIS were designated as preferred. Rather, guiding principles were developed requiring that each alternative be designed as a “full-spectrum” alternative that addressed, to varying degrees, all project objectives and design directives; be modular in nature, such that recreation access and infrastructure components could be interchangeable with habitat restoration and protection measures proposed; and embody a diverse range of feasible and implementable concepts, consistent with constraints identified and mapped early in the planning process. After input from responsible and interested agencies, and public comments provided on the draft EIR/EIS/EIS, and through additional outreach efforts, the lead agencies used a qualitative system to weigh the pros and cons of the alternatives to develop the Preferred Alternative described following the action alternatives below.
Alternative 1 would involve restoration of the Upper Truckee River by increasing channel length and decreasing channel capacity. Alternative 1 includes maximum recreation access and infrastructure on the perimeter of the marsh, including a bridge and board walk. Alternative 2 would involve river restoration by directly raising the streambed elevation, increasing the channel length, and decreasing channel capacity. A key element of this alternative's restoration component would be the excavation of a new river channel that has less capacity than the existing channel. Alternative 2 includes a minimum recreation access and infrastructure design approach, focusing primarily on habitat protection features. Alternative 3 would promote the development, through natural processes, of a new main channel and/or distributary channels in the central portion of the project area. A “pilot” channel would be constructed from the existing river channel to historical channels in the center of the project area, but no construction would occur in the central or northern portions of the project area. Rather, natural processes would be allowed to dictate the flow path(s), bed and bank elevations, and capacities of the channel(s) through the central and northern portions of the project area. Alternative 3 would include a moderate level of recreation access and infrastructure, including more signage, more trail development, and viewpoints than proposed under Alternative 2 but less than Alternative 1. Alternative 4 would restore the river channel and its connection to the floodplain by lowering bank heights by excavating an inset floodplain along much of the river channel, and by localized cut and fill to create meanders in the existing straightened reach. Alternative 4 would include a similar level of recreation infrastructure as Alternative 3. Alternative 5 would not provide any actions to restore the river channel and its connection to the floodplain or recreation features beyond maintaining existing infrastructure in the project area. This alternative would allow, but not facilitate the long-term, passive recovery of the river system via natural processes. This alternative represents a projection of reasonably foreseeable future conditions that could occur if no project actions were implemented.
The Preferred Alternative includes the most beneficial and cost-effective elements of the five alternatives evaluated in the draft EIR/EIS/EIS. This alternative is also the most feasible, the most highly responsive to public comments, and the most resilient to the potential impacts of climate change. It includes the following components:
• Alternative 3 restoration elements which involve construction of a small pilot channel that would reconnect the Upper Truckee River to the middle of the marsh to attain ecosystem and water quality improvements. This concept proposes the most geomorphically appropriate channel configuration allowing the pilot channel to strategically connect the current river alignment to historic channels and lagoons. The river would form its own pattern and spread over the expanse of the marsh, resulting in substantial benefits to habitats, wildlife, and water quality. The abandoned sections of existing river channel would be largely filled to create restored meadow and expanded wetlands.
• Alternative 5 for recreation elements on the east side of the Upper Truckee Marsh that would maintain the current dispersed recreation experience. No new recreation infrastructure would be installed and public access would be afforded through the current informal user-created trail system. The Conservancy would continue to manage and reduce the impacts of recreational use and new trails while providing on-site signage.
• Alternative 3 recreation elements for the west side of the Upper Truckee Marsh would upgrade the recreation infrastructure through construction of ADA-accessible trails to Lake Tahoe and formalized viewpoints that provide interpretive and site-information signage. The developed recreation experience would be maintained consistent with natural resource values.
• Previously proposed only under Alternatives 1 and 2, the Preferred Alternative would also include the restoration of sand ridges (“dunes”) at Cove East Beach that were graded and leveled as part of the Tahoe Keys development and the removal of fill at the east end of Barton Beach to create a restored lagoon.
The detailed description of the Preferred Alternative, the selection process, and a summary of Alternatives 1 through 5 are presented in Chapter 2 of the final EIR/EIS/EIS.
A Notice of Availability of the draft EIR/EIS/EIS was published in the
Copies of the final EIR/EIS/EIS are available for public review at the following locations:
• State of California, California Tahoe Conservancy, 1061 Third Street, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150.
• Tahoe Regional Planning Agency front desk, 128 Market Street, Stateline, NV 89449.
• Mid-Pacific Regional Library, Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in any correspondence, you should be aware that your entire correspondence—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your correspondence to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) announces that the draft Petition Evaluation Document and Environmental Impact Statement (PED/EIS) for the North Cumberland Wildlife Management Area Petition to Find Certain Lands Unsuitable for Surface Coal Mining Operations is available for public review and comment.
Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:
You may review the draft PED/EIS online at
Earl D. Bandy Jr., Director—Knoxville Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, John J. Duncan Federal Building, 710 Locust Street, 2nd Floor, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. Telephone: 865-545-4103. Email:
On September 30, 2010, pursuant to section 522 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), 30 U.S.C. 1272(c), the State of Tennessee filed a petition with OSMRE to designate certain lands in the state as unsuitable for surface coal mining operations. These lands include the area within 600 feet of all ridge lines (a 1,200 foot corridor) lying within the North Cumberland Wildlife Management Area (NCWMA)—made up of the Royal Blue Wildlife Management Area, the Sundquist Wildlife Management Area, and the New River Wildlife Management Area (also known as the Brimstone Tract Conservation Easement)—and the Emory River Tracts Conservation Easement (ERTCE). The area under consideration for designation encompasses in total approximately 67,326 acres along 505 miles of ridgelines. In accordance with its responsibility to administer the federal coal program in Tennessee, OSMRE must process and make decisions on all petitions submitted to designate areas in the state as unsuitable for surface coal mining operations.
The petition includes two primary allegations with numerous allegations of fact and supporting statements. In primary allegation 1, the petitioner contends that the petition area should be designated unsuitable for surface coal mining operations because surface coal mining in the area would be incompatible with existing state or local land use plans or programs. SMCRA 522(a)(3)(A), 30 U.S.C. 1272(a)(3)(A). In primary allegation 2, the petitioner contends that the OSMRE should designate the petition area as unsuitable for surface coal mining operations because such operations would affect fragile or historic lands, resulting in significant damage to important historic, cultural, scientific, and aesthetic values and natural systems. SMCRA 522(a)(3)(B), 30 U.S.C. 1272(a)(3)(B).
The Director, OSMRE, is required to make a decision on the petition. The draft EIS currently considers in detail the following alternatives for action by the Secretary:
In accordance with the applicable regulations under 30 CFR parts 762 and 764 and the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, OSMRE evaluated the merits of the unsuitability petition and analyzed the impacts of these alternatives. This analysis is reflected in the draft PED/EIS.
OSMRE has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative.
In accordance with 43 CFR 46.435(a) and 40 CFR 1503.1(a)(4), the public is invited to provide written comments on the draft PED/EIS during the 45-day comment period. Please see
OSMRE will review and consider all comments submitted via the methods discussed under
All comments should refer to a specific portion of the draft PED/EIS (citation to the chapter, section, page, paragraph, and sentence to which your comment applies would be helpful), be confined to pertinent issues, explain the reason for any recommended change or objection, and include supporting data when appropriate.
Before including your address, phone number, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifiable information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may request in your comment that your personally identifiable information be withheld from public review, OSMRE cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so.
In addition, a limited number of CD copies of the DEIS are available upon request. You may obtain a CD by contacting the person identified in
If you would like to be placed on the mailing list to receive future information on the draft PED/EIS, please contact the person identified in
OSMRE will hold a series of public hearings on the draft PED/EIS. OSMRE representatives will provide information at each hearing. OSMRE will announce arrangements, specific locations, dates, and times for each hearing in local press releases and on the project Web site at
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.1.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on November 6, 2015, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of HYDOR USA Inc. of Sacramento, California. Letters supplementing the complaint were filed on November 25, 2015. 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 aquarium fittings and parts thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,191,846 (“the '846 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 general exclusion order, or in the alternative, a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2015).
(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 aquarium fittings and parts thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-9 of the '846 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:
(b) The respondent is the following entity alleged to be in violation of section 337, and is the party 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 respondent 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
Failure of the 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.
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 11, 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 Tracey Robertson, Chief, Federal Firearms Licensing 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 1140-0019:
1.
2.
3.
Form number: ATF F 8 (5310.11) Part 11.
Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.
4.
Primary: Business or other for-profit.
Other: Individual or households.
Abstract: The form is filed by the licensee desiring to renew a Federal firearms license. It is used to identify the applicant, locate the business/collection premises, identify the type of business/collection activity, and determine the eligibility of the applicant.
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.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until January 11, 2016.
If you have comments on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the
Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Affected public (Primary): Business or other for-profit.
Affected public (Other): Not-for-profit institutions; Federal, State, local, and tribal governments.
Abstract: The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) requires all persons that manufacture, distribute, dispense, conduct research with, import, or export any controlled substance to obtain a registration issued by the Attorney General.
5.
6.
If additional information is required please 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., Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-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.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until February 9, 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 contact John Sickler, Visual Information Services Branch, 99 New York Ave. NE., Washington, DC 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
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
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.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-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.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until February 9, 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 contact Rinell Lawrence, Firearms Enforcement Specialist, Firearms Industry Program, 99 New York Avenue NE. 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,
1.
2.
3.
Form number (if applicable): None.
Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.
4.
Primary: Business.
Other (if applicable): None.
Abstract: ATF uses manufacturer's records information during investigations, inspections for criminal activity, or for compliance purposes.
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.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until January 11, 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 contact please contact Devon Adams, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20531 (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:
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(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., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification. This notice is a summary of petitions for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by the parties listed below.
All comments on the petitions must be received by the MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before January 11, 2016.
You may submit your comments, identified by “docket number” on the subject line, by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
MSHA will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments.
Barbara Barron, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9447 (Voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. That the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modification.
(1) The box cut configuration, as built mine opening seal locations and proposed backfill plans, is presented graphically on Drawing Nos. B15-334-E4 and B15-334-E5. The five mine openings within the box cut have previously been sealed in accordance with the MSHA approval. Subsequently, the sealed openings were backfilled with soil and rock. The surveyed limits of the soil and rock backfill are presented on Drawing No. B15-334-E4. During our field visit, it was noted that the backfill above opening No. 2 had settled, exposing the top of the opening. Additional soil and rock will be placed at the openings to at least 4 feet above the coal seam.
(2) The petitioner proposes to backfill the totally incised box cut excavation with coal refuse; however, 30 CFR 77.214(a) states that refuse piles shall not be located over abandoned openings. The apparent intent of this regulation is to limit the potential for a “blowout” of mine water and to limit the potential for combustion of the refuse and/or coal seam. The proposed backfill plan described below addresses these concerns and provides a practical method of backfilling the box cut excavation that will provide an equivalent or greater measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
(3) In the case of the Wet Branch box cut, the material excavated from the box cut was used to bring the preparation plant and coal stockpile areas to grade and is no longer available to eliminate the pit. The coal refuse will be used as a construction material, not to construct a new refuse pile. The five openings associated with the American Eagle Mine in the No. 2 Gas seam were sealed and have been backfilled with soil and rock. Additional soil and rock fill placement is specified to effectively isolate the openings from the proposed refuse backfill. The seal in Opening No. 2 located at the southern end of the box cut included a drain through the seal. It is proposed to cap this drain since there are openings at a lower elevation to the northwest currently discharging water from unmapped abandoned mine workings which were intersected by this mine. The previously placed and proposed soil and rock isolates the mine workings from the proposed coal refuse fill minimizing any potential for a mine fire to spread to the refuse fill. Any exposed coal seams will be covered with at least four feet of soil and rock as the coal refuse backfill is placed. The coal refuse will be placed in 2-foot maximum thick lifts. This requirement should preclude the potential for the refuse to spontaneously combust. Since the mine has a gravity outlet at an elevation lower than the bottom of the box cut, there is no significant potential for the mine workings at the box cut to flood.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will provide an equivalent or greater measure of protection to that afforded by the existing standard.
(1) The 995-volt bolters trailing cables will not be smaller than No. 2 American Wire Gauge (AWG) cable.
(2) All circuit breakers used to protect the No. 2 AWG trailing cables exceeding 700 feet in length will have instantaneous trip units calibrated to trip at 800 amperes. The trip setting of these circuit breakers will be sealed or locked so that the settings cannot be changed, and these circuit breakers will have permanent, legible labels. Each label will identify the circuit breaker as being suitable for protecting No. 2 AWG cables. The cables will be maintained legible.
(3) Replacement instantaneous trip units used to protect the No. 2 AWG trailing cables will be calibrated to trip at 800 amperes and this setting will be sealed and locked.
(4) All components that provide short-circuit protection will have a sufficient interruption rating in accordance with the maximum calculated fault currents available.
(5) Short circuit settings must not exceed the setting specified in the approval documentation or 70 percent of the maximum available current, whichever is less.
(6) Any cable that is not in safe operating condition will be removed from service immediately and repaired or replaced.
(7) Each splice or repair in the trailing cables will be made in a workmanlike manner and in accordance with the instructions of the manufacturer of the splice or repair kit. The outer jacket of each splice or repair will be vulcanized with flame-resistant material or made with material that has been accepted by MSHA as flame-resistant.
(8) In the event that mining methods or operating procedures cause or contribute to the damage of any trailing cable, the trailing cable will be removed from service immediately, repaired or replaced, and additional precautions will be taken to ensure that in the future the cable is protected and maintained in safe operating condition.
(9) During the production day, persons designated by the mine operator will visibly examine the trailing cables to ensure that the cables are in safe operating condition. The instantaneous settings of the specially calibrated breakers will also be visually examined to ensure that the seals or locks have not been removed and that they do not exceed the settings stipulated in this petition.
(10) Permanent warning labels will be installed and maintained on the cover(s) of the power center identifying the location of each sealed short-circuit protective device. These labels will
(11) The alternative method will not be implemented until all miners who have been designated to examine the integrity of the seals or locks to verify the short-circuit settings, and to examine the trailing cables for defects, have received training.
(12) Within 60 days after the proposed decision and order becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for their approved 30 CFR part 48 training plans to the District Manager. The procedures specified in 30 CFR 48.3 for approval of proposed revisions to already approved training plans will apply. The training will include the following elements:
(a) Mining methods and operating procedures that will protect the trailing cables against damage.
(b) Proper procedures for examining the trailing cables to ensure that the cables are in safe operating condition.
(c) The hazards of setting the short-circuit interrupting device(s) too high to adequately protect the trailing cables.
(d) How to verify that the circuit interrupting device(s) protecting the trailing cable(s) are properly set and maintained.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
(1) There are a total of 7 Mine Shield LLC shelters in service and 5 Mine Shield Shelter available in its Perry County Coal E4-1 Mine, E4-2 Mine, and E3-1 Mine. All units have been retrofitted as prescribed by MSHA.
(2) Examination, testing, maintenance, and repairs cannot be accomplished according to the manufacturer's recommendation since Mine Shield LLC is no longer in business and the technician conducting the examination, maintenance, and repairs no longer exist.
(3) The examinations, testing, maintenance, and repairs as required by the manufacturer's recommendation cannot be conducted since the manufacturer's technicians are no longer available. The petitioner proposes to:
Within 60 days after the Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for its approved part 48 training plan to the District Manager. These proposed revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions stated in the PDO.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
(1) The Mine No. 1 extracts coal from the Herrin No. 6 seam by both continuous mining and longwall extraction methods. The coal seam is intersected by a vertical shaft with cage hoist facility and by a dual compartment slope that contains a slope car hoist facility in the lower track compartment and a belt conveyor in the isolated upper compartment. Escapeways as required in 30 CFR 75.380(a) are connected to these hoist facilities as required by 30 CFR 75.380(i)(1) and (2).
(2) Rope and drum hoists used as mechanical escape facilities are subject to maintenance and/or conditions that could interfere with the operation of the facility for extended periods of time. The availability of a third mechanical escape facility enhances compliance with escapeway regulations in that there will be an additional escape facility during normal hoist operations and provide the second mechanical escape facility in the event there is required maintenance of either rope and drum hoist.
(3) The specific language of 30 CFR 75.382(a), (b), (c)(1) and (2), and (f) specifically addresses rope-type drum hoists and elevators. Subparagraph (b) also uses the term “or other devices” as a reference to a type of escape facility. While not specifying a belt conveyor as an “other device”, the subparagraph also does not preclude a belt conveyor from being used as an escape facility.
(4) Belt conveyors have been used to safely transport miners to and from the surface and underground areas of coal mines when the safety measures and provisions listed in the criteria of 30 CFR 75.1403-5 are provided. Belt conveyors so equipped for the transportation of personnel and used as a “mantrip” can also be used safely as a mechanical escape facility.
(5) Current technology for slope belt conveyors can now provide mechanical escape facility capability with no less measure of safety for the miner than the application of the mandatory standard. The 72-inch slope belt conveyor at Mine
(6) The original equipment manufacturer has by design, provided the necessary components (variable frequency drives, programmable logic computers and associated software, and switches/touchscreen controls) to provide for “mantrip-mode” operation. Additionally, the drive motor gear boxes are provided with a braking/blocking device that mechanically prevents rotation of the gears when the drive motors are deenergized.
The petitioner proposes to use the slope belt conveyor at Mine No. 1 as a mechanical escape facility conditioned on compliance with the following:
(a) Operating the slope belt conveyor as an emergency escape facility;
(b) Examination for hazards along the slope belt conveyor and examination of the mechanical and electrical condition of the slope conveyor system;
(c) Immediate reporting of hazards or mechanical deficiencies observed; and
(d) Confirmation that any reported hazards or defects are corrected before the slope belt is used as an emergency escape facility.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times provide the same degree of safety as that provided by the existing standard.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification. This notice is a summary of petitions for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by the parties listed below.
All comments on the petitions must be received by the MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before January 11, 2016.
You may submit your comments, identified by “docket number” on the subject line, by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
MSHA will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments.
Barbara Barron, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9447 (Voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. That the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modification.
(1) Only RDO-100 will be used, which is an engineered liquid hydrocarbon fuel that is refined off site from recycled petroleum products by a reputable commercial business with quality controls in place to assure that the product meets the specifications outlined in the Material Safety Data Sheet.
(2) Marigold mining company received lab results from American Testing Technologies, Inc., analyzing the RDO-100 Burner Fuel. The RDO-100 Burner Fuel oil exceeds the following Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) limits of 40 CFR 279.11:
In similar cases, and corresponding orders granting modification of the application of 30 CFR 56-6309(b), MSHA has determined that there is not a diminution of safety when using re-refined used oil that meets the EPA criterial of 40 CFR 279.11, and does not contain hazardous waste material listed in 40 CFR part 261 to prepare ANFO.
(3) Marigold Mining Company seeks modification of the existing standard that recognizes the RDO-100 Burner Fuel is not a “waste oil” or “crankcase oil” prohibited by the referenced standard. RDO-100 is an engineered liquid hydrocarbon fuel manufactured offsite from 100 percent reclaimed petroleum products, and has a flash point greater than 200 degrees Fahrenheit. Marigold Mining seeks recognition from MSHA that it can utilize RDO-100 Burner Fuel to prepare ANFO.
(4) RDO-100 burner fuel is not a “waste oil” or “crankcase oil” prohibited by the referenced standard. Used oil is clearly acceptable to certain situations under EPA standard. Marigold Mining should be allowed to use re-refined and EPA compliant oil to prepare ammonium nitrate-fuel oil for the blasting process. 30 CFR 56.6309(b) states that “waste oil, including crankcase oil, shall not be used to prepare ammonium nitrate-fuel oil” However, the standard does not define the terms “waste oil and “crankcase oil”. Evaluating common industry definitions, it is clear that the RDO-100 burner fuel utilized by Marigold Mining does not fall into either of these categories.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a “crankcase” as “the part of an engine that contains the crankshaft, the housing of a crankshaft.” Thus, “crankcase oil” is the oil inside the crankcase that lubricates the crankshaft. The oil that Marigold Mining intends to utilize is recycled EPA compliant oil that does not fall under this definition. Used oil is clearly acceptable in certain situations under EPA standards. “Used oil means any oil that has been refined from crude oil, or any synthetic oil, that has been used and as a result of such use is contaminated by physical or chemical impurities,” 40 CFR 279.1. 40 CFR part 279 defines the acceptable and prohibited uses of “used oil”. However, “used oil burned for energy recovery, and any fuel produced from used oil by processing, blending, or other treatment is subject to regulation under [40 CFR part 279] unless it is shown not to exceed any of the allowable levels of the constituents and properties.
40 CFR 279.11 (emphasis added). Based on Marigold Mining analysis test results, it is evident that Marigold Mining re-refined used oil does not exceed any allowable levels, and thus is not subject to the prohibitions described in 40 CFR part 279. As such, Marigold Mining should be allowed to utilize used, recycled, EPA compliant oil to prepare ammonium nitrate-fuel oil.
(5) RDO-100 burner fuel (recycled oil) is almost chemically identical to Mobile 15-W40 motor oil (new oil). Even if RDO-100 burner fuel is considered “waste oil” under 30 CFR 56.6309(b), a comparison of the lab results for RDO-100 burner fuel (recycled oil) and Mobile 15-W40 motor oil” (new oil) used to make ANFO reveals that there is not significant difference between the two. The new oil contains more total halogens than the recycled oil. RDO-100 is an engineered liquid hydrocarbon fuel refined offsite from recycled petroleum products by a reputable commercial business with quality controls in place to assure that the product meets the specifications outlined in the MSDS. Thus, creation of ANFO using RDO-100 versus Mobile15-W40 motor oil is similar to the creation of a Coke bottle using recycled plastic versus new plastic.
(6) Marigold Mining is in the process of establishing several precautionary measures that it intends to follow in an effort to dispel any safety concerns. The procedures below constitute a fully appropriate and safe method for transporting, storing, and utilizing recycled used oil to prepare ANFO without any diminution of safety.
(7) There have been no documented incidents at the Marigold Mine from use of RDO-100 burner fuel to prepare ANFO. Marigold Mining has successfully used RDO-100 burner fuel for over eight years without any problems, and has had several discussions with MSHA inspectors during that period regarding use of the product. Prior to Citation No. 8562938 being issued and subsequently vacated in 2011, no MSHA inspector has ever cited Marigold Mining for the use of RDO-100 burner fuel, nor has any MSHA inspector ever advised Marigold Mining not use RDO-100 burner fuel. Marigold Mining's use of RDO-100 burner fuel is a safe environmentally responsible practice that complies with the requirements of 30 CFR 6309.
The petitioner asserts that application of the existing standard will result in a diminution of safety to the miners and that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft regulatory guide; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment draft regulatory guide (DG), DG-4025, “Assessment of Radioactive Discharges in Ground Water to the Unrestricted Area at Nuclear Power Plant Sites.” This DG proposes guidance for an approach that the NRC staff considers acceptable for use in assessing abnormal, inadvertent radioactive releases that may result in discharges of contaminated ground water from the subsurface to the unrestricted area at commercial nuclear power plant sites.
Submit comments by February 9, 2016. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Although a time limit is given, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specified subject):
•
•
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Thomas Nicholson, telephone: 301-415-2471, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0272 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document, by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0272 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC is issuing for public comment a DG in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information regarding methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
The DG, entitled, “Assessment of Radioactive Discharges in Ground Water to the Unrestricted Area at Nuclear Power Plant Sites” is a proposed new
This DG-4025 describes a method that the staff of the NRC considers acceptable for assessing abnormal, inadvertent radioactive releases which may result in discharges of contaminated ground water from the subsurface to the unrestricted area at commercial nuclear power plant sites. Issuance of this DG, if finalized, would not constitute backfitting as defined in section 50.109 of Title 10 of the
This DG may be applied to applications for operating licenses, combined licenses, early site permits, and certified design rules docketed by the NRC as of the date of issuance of the final regulatory guide, as well as future applications submitted after the issuance of the regulatory guide. Such action would not constitute backfitting as defined in the Backfit Rule or be otherwise inconsistent with the applicable issue finality provision in 10 CFR part 52, inasmuch as such applicants or potential applicants are not within the scope of entities protected by the Backfit Rule or the relevant issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice of meeting.
The National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations plans to meet on the following dates—
• Wednesday, January 20, 2016
• Wednesday, March 16, 2016
• Wednesday, May 18, 2016
• Wednesday, July 20, 2016
• Wednesday, September 21, 2016
• Wednesday, November 16, 2016
The meetings will start at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time and will be held in Room 1350, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415. Interested parties should consult the Council Web site at
The Council is an advisory body composed of representatives of Federal employee organizations, Federal management organizations, and senior Government officials. The Council was established by Executive Order 13522, entitled, “Creating Labor-Management Forums to Improve Delivery of Government Services,” which was signed by the President on December 9, 2009. Along with its other responsibilities, the Council assists in the implementation of labor-management forums throughout the Government and makes recommendations to the President on innovative ways to improve delivery of services and products to the public while cutting costs and advancing employee interests. The Council is co-chaired by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management and the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget.
At its meetings, the Council will continue its work in promoting cooperative and productive relationships between labor and management in the executive branch by carrying out the responsibilities and functions listed in section 1(b) of the Executive Order. The meetings are open to the public. Please contact the Office of Personnel Management at the address shown below if you wish to present material to the Council at the meeting. The manner and time prescribed for presentations may be limited, depending upon the number of parties that express interest in presenting information.
Tim Curry, Deputy Associate Director for Partnership and Labor Relations, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 7H28, Washington, DC 20415; phone at (202) 606-2930; or email at
For the National Council.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Contract 159 negotiated service agreement to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-25 and CP2016-31 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 159 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than December 14, 2015. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Christopher C. Mohr to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-25 and CP2016-31 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Christopher C. Mohr is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than December 14, 2015.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Contract 158 negotiated service agreement to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-24 and CP2016-30 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 158 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than December 14, 2015. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Derrick D. Dennis to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-24 and CP2016-30 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Derrick D. Dennis is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than December 14, 2015.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Contract 157 negotiated service agreement to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-23 and CP2016-29 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 157 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than December 14, 2015. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Derrick D. Dennis to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-23 and CP2016-29 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Derrick D. Derrick is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than December 14, 2015.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 4, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 4, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 4, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 4, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
January 7, 2016, at 1:00 p.m.
via Teleconference.
Closed.
Thursday, January 7, 2016, at 1:00 p.m.
1. Strategic Issues.
2. Financial Matters.
3. Pricing.
4. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues.
5. Executive Session—Discussion of prior agenda items and Board governance.
The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service has certified that the meeting may be closed under the Government in the Sunshine Act.
Requests for information about the meeting should be addressed to the Secretary of the Board, Julie S. Moore, at 202-268-4800.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 4, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The principal purpose of the proposed changes is to amend certain provisions relating to gross margining for various categories of Customer Accounts.
In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
ICE Clear Europe submits certain proposed amendments to its Clearing Rules (the “Rules”) and Clearing Procedures relating to the margining of Customer Accounts. The amendments provide additional options for Clearing Members to use so-called “gross margined” Customer Accounts (and will require use of such accounts for certain F&O products as discussed below). The amendments further clarify which types of Customer Accounts are margined on a gross as opposed to a net basis, as well as related procedures for the collection and transfer of margin for such accounts and certain related information requirements, as discussed herein. For this purpose, for a Customer Account margined on a “gross” basis, initial or original margin requirements are determined separately with respect to the positions of each customer of the relevant Clearing Member (
The proposed changes are principally relevant to the Customer Accounts of Non-FCM/BD Clearing Members with respect to F&O Contracts. ICE Clear Europe's existing rules provide several types of Customer Accounts for such Clearing Members in light of relevant regulatory requirements and
ICE Clear Europe is adopting the requirement for the use of gross margining to align the margin framework for certain energy contracts cleared by Non-FCM/BD Clearing Members more closely with the requirements that apply to FCM Clearing Members under CFTC rules and the Clearing House's rules for FCM Customer Accounts, as implemented in 2012 when certain cleared OTC contracts were converted to economically-equivalent futures contracts admitted to trading on ICE Futures US. Such contracts are margined using a one-day period of risk. In this regard, ICE Clear Europe also notes that the European Securities and Markets Authority has issued a discussion paper for consultation as to the use of gross margined customer accounts under certain circumstances (and in particular, whether a gross margined account using a one-day margin period of risk (of the type being provided under the rule amendments) should be a permitted alternative to an account using a two-day margin period of risk in order to satisfy requirements under EMIR, in light of the fact that EMIR is currently silent on whether accounts should be net or gross margined).
For Customer Accounts with respect to CDS Contracts, the current practice of margining on a gross basis would be maintained.
The status of the DCM Customer Account and Swap Customer Account of FCM/BD Clearing Members (which are currently gross margined, consistent with U.S. regulatory requirements) would not be affected by the proposed amendments. The amendments would clarify the option for FCM/BD Clearing Members to use their Non-DCM/Swap Customer Account or General Customer Account on either a gross margined or net margined basis, to the extent permitted by applicable law. Certain other clarifications and updates are made in the Rules and Clearing Procedures as well, as discussed herein.
Specifically, ICE Clear Europe proposes to make amendments to Parts 3, 4, 6, 7 and 16 of its Rules and to the Clearing Procedures.
In Part 3 of the Rules, Rule 302, which addresses the procedures for payments to and from the Clearing House in respect of various categories of Customer Accounts, has been revised to take into account the new set of gross margined accounts and to simplify some of the drafting. As revised, the Rule clarifies that the Clearing House will determine the required margin amount based on the relevant margin model for that account type (net or gross). The Clearing House will then calculate the net amount owed to or by the Clearing House for that account based on that requirement. With respect to the Swap Customer Account, Rule 302 has been revised to add a cross-reference to the appropriate provisions in Rule 1605(h), which address the calculation and settlement of margin for that account more specifically. In Rule 304, which addresses payments with respect to Sponsored Principal accounts, certain changes have been made to conform to the changes made in Rule 302.
Rule 401(g) is amended to require each Clearing Member to submit on a daily basis (or more frequently, if requested by ICE Clear Europe) a breakdown of the open positions in each Customer Account on a per customer basis, in order to permit the Clearing House to calculate gross margin for that account, if applicable. Rule 406 is amended to clarify that positions in a Customer Account of one customer are not to be netted against opposite positions of another customer, and that positions in separate Customer Accounts are not to be netted against each other, consistent with other existing provisions of the Rules.
Rule 702(c) is amended to set out more clearly how the cash settlement amount for futures contracts is calculated based on the positions held in different accounts, in light of the use of gross or net margining discussed above. As revised, the rule refers to the difference between the exchange settlement price and the price at which the contract is recorded on the Clearing House's books (or, for new contracts entered into on the day of settlement, the price at which the contract was bought or sold). This is consistent with current practice for such contracts. Similar clarifications are made in Rule 705(a) to reflect the treatment of contracts entered into on the day of settlement. In Rule 803(a), a similar change is made to reflect the treatment of option contracts entered into on the same day as the exercise date. Rule 810(d) is amended to set out more clearly the calculation of the cash settlement amount for an option contract (based on the difference between the relevant reference price and the price at which the contract is recorded on the Clearing House's books (or, for new contracts entered into on the day of exercise, the price at which the contract was bought or sold). This is also consistent with current practice for such option contracts.
In Rule 1605(h), which addresses margin for the Swap Customer Account of FCM/BD Clearing Members, certain amendments have been made to refer more specifically to the relevant Rules and procedures used for the transfer of relevant amounts to and from the Clearing House (in line with the procedures applicable to transfers of Margin for other accounts under the Rules and Finance Procedures). The amendments do not materially change the operation of the Swap Customer Account, but reflect the addition of the cross reference to Rule 1605(h) in Rule 302, which is intended to provide greater clarity to Clearing Members and market participants.
The Clearing Procedures have been amended to add the relevant new account designations and to distinguish more clearly between net margined and gross margined Customer Accounts, along with various conforming and clarifying changes. In paragraph 2.3(b)(2), for FCM/BD Clearing Members, the amendments state explicitly that the S, W and Z accounts use gross margin models, and add a new E account that can be used as a net margined account under the Non-DCM/Swap Customer Account or General Customer Account category, to the extent permissible under applicable law. In paragraphs 2.3(b)(3) and (4), for Non-FCM/BD Clearing Members, the amendments state explicitly that the S,
ICE Clear Europe has made available to F&O Clearing Members, pursuant to a member transition plan and the electronic GSPD file provided to clearing members on a daily basis, the details of the particular F&O Contracts that will be required to be held in gross margined Customer Accounts, as well as those that may be held in either gross or net margined Customer Accounts, in accordance with the amended Rules and Procedures described above, upon implementation of the amendments. Specifically, those ICE Futures Europe and ICE Futures US energy contracts that currently are margined using a one-day margin period of risk will be required to be carried in gross margined Customer Accounts. These include contracts relating to coal, crude oil and refined crude products, petrochemicals, US electricity, US emissions, US natural gas and natural gas liquids. Other F&O Contracts (including Financials & Softs contracts and certain energy contract traded on ICE Futures Europe and ICE Endex that are currently margined using a two-day margin period of risk) may be carried in either net or gross margined Customer Accounts. ICE Clear Europe will notify F&O Clearing Members by circular of the date of implementation of the amendments and gross margining requirements discussed herein.
ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed amendments to the Rules and Clearing Procedures are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
The amendments are designed principally to facilitate the use by Non-FCM/BD Clearing Members of gross margined Customer Accounts for the F&O product category. The amendments also more clearly distinguish between net margined and gross margined accounts in the Rules and Procedures, and clarify and simplify the rules and procedures relating to the calling and return of initial and original margin for all accounts. The amendments thus build on the existing customer account structure established in the ICE Clear Europe rules. By facilitating gross margining, and providing the Clearing House with customer-by-customer position data that supports such margining, the amendments will also enhance the Clearing House's risk management infrastructure with respect to Customer Accounts. As described above, the amendments are principally relevant to Non-FCM/BD Clearing Members for F&O Contracts; the DCM Customer Account and Swap Customer Account structures for FCM/BD Clearing Members (which are gross margined accounts) are prescribed by applicable U.S. law and are not materially changing as a result of the amendments. As a result, in ICE Clear Europe's view, the amendments will promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of derivative transactions, are consistent with the safeguarding of funds and securities in the custody or control of ICE Clear Europe, and generally further the public interest. The amendments are therefore consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed changes to the Rules discussed herein would have any adverse impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed amendments are intended to provide Clearing Members with additional ability to use gross margined Customer Accounts. Such accounts will be available on the same terms to all Non-FCM/BD Clearing Members. ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed amendments would adversely affect access to clearing by Clearing Members or their customers, adversely affect competition among Clearing Members or adversely affect the market for clearing services or limit market participants' choices for clearing transactions. Rather, competition among Clearing Members, and access to clearing, may be facilitated through the possibility of Clearing Members offering a choice of net or gross margining, where permitted (in all cases subject to applicable legal requirements and Clearing Rules). Although the proposed amendments may impose additional compliance costs on Clearing Members, including because of the requirements to provide customer-related data to the Clearing House, ICE Clear Europe believes that such costs are appropriate in light of the benefits (to each of the Clearing House, Clearing Members and customers) from facilitating gross margining for Customer Accounts. As a result, ICE Clear Europe does not believe that the proposed amendments to the Rules will impose any burden on competition not appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
On October 30, 2015, ICE Clear Europe solicited written comments relating to the proposed Rule and Procedure changes via a circular. Comments were due by November 13, 2015, and no comments had been received as of the time of this filing. ICE Clear Europe will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICE Clear Europe.
The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2015-019 and should be submitted on or before January 4, 2016.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange rules to prescribe the Securities Traders examination (Series 57) (the “Series 57 Examination”) as the qualifying examination for persons associated with a member organization (“Member”) engaged solely in proprietary trading, and amend Exchange rules regarding continuing education requirement applicable to such Member. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
Rule 345—Equities currently states that no Member shall permit any natural person to perform the duties customarily performed by a securities lending representative or a direct supervisor of such, unless such person is registered with, qualified by and is acceptable to the Exchange. The rule further states that Members shall comply with NASD Rule 1031 concerning the registration and approval of registered representatives and their supervisors. Under the current rule, each associated person of a Member who is included within the definition of “representative” in NASD Rule 1031 is required to appropriately register with the Exchange if such person is engaged in proprietary trading or directly supervises such activity. In order to engage in proprietary trading on the Exchange, an associated person must be registered as a General Securities Representative (Series 7) as NYSE MKT does not recognize the Series 56 Examination as an acceptable qualification standard for associated persons engaged in equities proprietary trading.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 345—Equities to recognize a new category of limited representative registration for a Securities Trader and allow such individual to register in Web CRD
The Series 57 Examination is being developed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) in consultation with industry and exchange representatives. The Series 57 Examination will be based on industry rules applicable to trading of equity securities and listed options contracts. The Series 57 examination will cover, among other things, recordkeeping and recording requirements; types and characteristics of securities and investments; trading practices; and display, execution, and trading systems.
Individuals currently engaged solely in proprietary trading, who currently qualify for registration by passing the Series 7 Examination and have registered in Web CRD as Proprietary Traders will have their registration converted in Web CRD on January 4, 2016 to a Securities Trader without having to take any additional examinations and without having to take any other actions. However, the registration of individuals who have taken the Series 7 Examination will not be converted to a Securities Trader if they have not registered as a Proprietary Trader in Web CRD by December 28, 2015. After that date, these individuals would be required to take the Series 57 Examination in order to register as Securities Traders as the Series 7 Examination would no longer serve as a qualifying exam to engage solely in proprietary trading on the Exchange. In addition, individuals registered as Proprietary Traders in Web CRD prior to the effective date of the proposed rule change will be eligible to register as Securities Traders without having to take any additional examinations, provided that no more than two years have passed between the date the individual last registered as a Proprietary Trader and the date the individual registers as a Securities Trader.
In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 345—Equities to create a new category of limited representative Principal—the Securities Trader Principal. Registration as a Securities Trader Principal would be restricted to individuals whose supervisory responsibilities are limited to Securities Traders, as defined in amended Supplementary Material .10 to Rule 345—Equities. As proposed, a supervisor of a Securities Trader must satisfy its registration requirements under Supplementary Material .10 to Rule 345—Equities by registering and qualifying as a Securities Trader Principal in Web CRD if (a) such supervisor's supervisory responsibilities are limited solely to supervising Securities Traders; (b) such supervisor is qualified to be so registered by passing the General Securities Principal Qualification Examination—Series 24; and (c) such supervisor is registered pursuant to Exchange Rules as a Securities Trader. Under the proposed rule change, a Securities Trader Principal would not be qualified to function in a Principal or supervisory capacity with responsibility over any area of business other than that involving proprietary trading.
The Exchange notes that in order to currently qualify as a Proprietary Trader Principal, an associated person must pass the Series 7 Examination and the Series 24 Examination. Once the Series 57 Examination becomes the qualifying exam for a Securities Trader, associated persons would need to pass the Series 57 Examination and the Series 24 Examination in order to register as a Securities Trader Principal. Only those individuals who are registered as such would be qualified to supervise a Securities Trader. Individuals registered as a General Securities Principal would not be qualified to supervise a Securities Trader, nor would a Securities Trader Principal be able to act as a General Securities Principal, unless the individual is appropriately registered as a Securities Trader Principal and a General Securities Principal.
Further, registered persons are required under Rule 345A—Equities to comply with the Exchange's continuing education requirements. Specifically, under Rule 345A—Equities(a)(1), no Member may permit any registered person to continue to, and no registered person may continue to, perform duties as a registered person, unless such person has complied with the Exchange's continuing education requirements. The Exchange proposes to amend the rule to specifically require each registered person who is qualified solely as a Securities Trader to comply with the continuing education requirements appropriate for the Series 57.
Within 30 days of filing the proposed rule change, the Exchange will issue a Regulatory Bulletin announcing the operative date of the rule change, which will not be sooner than January 4, 2016.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change does not impose any additional examination burdens on persons who are already registered. There is no obligation to take the Series 57 examination in order to continue in their present duties, so the proposed rule change is not expected to disadvantage current registered persons relative to new entrants in this regard.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 2, 2015, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to enhance current and adopt new price protection mechanisms for orders and quotes.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange has in place various price check mechanisms that are designed to prevent incoming orders from automatically executing at potentially erroneous prices.
Proposed Rule 6.14(a) provides price protections for simple orders to buy put and call options based on the strike price or underlying value, respectively. The proposed rule provides that the System
With respect to put options, a Trading Permit Holder seeks to buy an option that could be exercised into the right to sell the underlying. The value of a put can never exceed the strike price of the option, even if the underlying goes to zero. For example, one put for stock ABC with a strike price of $50 gives the holder the right to sell 100 shares of ABC for $50, no more or less. Therefore, it would be illogical to pay more than $50 for the right to sell shares of ABC, regardless of the price of ABC. Pursuant to proposed Rule 6.14(a)(i)(A), the Exchange would deem any put bid or buyer order with a price that equals or exceeds the strike price of the option to be erroneous, and the Exchange believes it would be appropriate to reject these bids and buy orders.
With respect to call options, a Trading Permit Holder seeks to buy an option that could be exercised into the right to buy the underlying. The Exchange does not believe that a derivative product that conveys the right to buy the underlying should ever be priced higher than the prevailing value of the underlying itself. In that case, a market participant could just purchase the underlying at the prevailing value rather than pay a larger amount for the call. Accordingly, pursuant to proposed Rule 6.14(a)(i)(B), the Exchange believes it is appropriate to reject bids or buy orders for call options with prices that are equal to or in excess of the value of the underlying. As an example, suppose a Trading Permit Holder submits Order 1 to buy an ABC call for $8 and Order 2 to buy an ABC call for $11 when the last sale price for stock ABC is $10. Because the price to buy for Order 2 is greater than the last sale price of the underlying, the System will reject Order 2. The System will either execute or book Order 1 in accordance with CBOE's rules.
Pursuant to the proposed rule, with respect to equity and ETF options, the Exchange would use the consolidated last sale price of the underlying security, with respect to equity and ETF
As an additional risk control feature, if a Market-Maker submits a quote in a series in which the Market-Maker already has a resting quote (thus, was attempting to update a quote) and the System rejects that quote pursuant to either of these proposed checks, the System will cancel the Market-Maker's resting quote
As an example, suppose a Market-Maker has a resting two-sided quote in Series 1 for stock ABC of 14.00 to 16.00. The options in Series 1 are puts with a strike price of $18.00. The Market-Maker submits an updated two-sided quote of 18.00 to 19.00. Because the quote bid is the same as the strike price for Series 1, the System will reject the 18.00 quote bid and the 19.00 quote offer. Additionally, the System will cancel the Market-Maker's resting quote in Series 1 of 14.00 to 16.00. The Market-Maker then submits a new two-sided quote of 16.00 to 17.00, which the System accepts.
Proposed Rule 6.14(a)(ii) provides that the Exchange may determine not to apply to a class either the put check or the call check described above if a senior official at the Exchange's Help Desk determines it should not apply in the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market.
To the extent a Trading Permit Holder submits a pair of orders to AIM,
Currently, the Exchange applies price reasonability checks to limit orders.
As an additional risk control feature, if a Market-Maker submits a quote in a series in which the Market-Maker already has a resting quote (thus, was attempting to update a quote) and the System rejects that quote pursuant to this proposed check, the System will cancel the Market-Maker's resting quote
For example, suppose the Exchange has set a tick distance of three in a class. The minimum increment for that class is $0.05 for series quoted below $3 and $0.10 for series quotes at $3 and above,
Proposed Rule 6.14(b)(ii) provides that the Exchange may determine not to apply this proposed check to quotes entered during the pre-opening, a trading rotation or a trading halt, which it will announce to Trading Permit Holders by Regulatory Circular. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to have the ability to not apply this check during the pre-open or opening rotation so that the check does not impact the determination of the opening price. However, the Exchange may determine that there is sufficient information during those times (such as if another exchange is disseminating pricing information) to apply the check. The Exchange also may not want to apply this check during halts, as pricing during that time may be volatile and inaccurate. Additionally, this check will not apply if a senior official at the Exchange's Help Desk determines it should not apply in the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market.
Proposed Rule 6.14(b)(iii) states that if the System accepts a quote that locks or crosses the NBBO (which may occur if the proposed check is not applied to a quote pursuant to the proposed rule or if a quote inverts the NBBO but by no more than the specified number of ticks), the System will execute the quote bid (offer) against quotes and orders in the book at a price(s) that is the same or better than the best price disseminated by away exchanges up to the size available on the Exchange. If there is any remaining size of the quote after this execution, the System either (i) cancels any remaining size of the quote, if the price of the quote locks or crosses the price disseminated by the away exchange(s) or (ii) books any remaining size of the quote, if the price of the quote does not lock or cross the price of the away exchange(s).
For example, suppose the NBBO is 1.00 to 1.20, and a Market-Maker submits a quote bid for 100 contracts at 1.24. Assuming this class has a minimum increment of 0.01 and the Exchange set the tick distance for this check at five, the System accepts this quote because it only inverts the NBO by four ticks. CBOE has an order to sell 10 at 1.20, an order to sell 20 at 1.21, an order to sell 10 at 1.22, an order to sell 10 at 1.23 and an order to sell 20 at 1.24 resting on the book. The best offer disseminated by an away exchange is 1.23. The incoming quote bid will execute against the order to sell at 1.20 (10 contracts), the order to sell at 1.21 (20 contracts), the order to sell at 1.22 (10 contracts) and the order to sell at
Current Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy .08(c) provides that the System will not automatically execute certain vertical and butterfly complex orders
The proposed rule change expands the applicability of this price check to all complex orders for which the System can determine whether they are debits (orders to buy) or credits (orders to sell). The proposed rule change simplifies the current rule text in subparagraphs (c)(1) and (2) and combines them into proposed subparagraph (c)(1) to state that the System will not automatically execute a limit order for a debit strategy with a net credit price, a limit order for a credit strategy with a net debit price, or a market order for a credit strategy that would be executed at a net debit price.
The System determines whether an order is a debit or credit based on general options volatility and pricing principles, which the Exchange understands are used by market participants in their option pricing models. With respect to options with the same underlying:
• If two calls have the same expiration date, the price of the call with the lower exercise price is more than the price of the call with the higher exercise price;
• if two puts have the same expiration date, the price of the put with the higher exercise price is more than the price of the put with the lower exercise price; and
• if two calls (puts) have the same exercise price, the price of the call (put) with the nearer expiration is less than the price of the call (put) with the farther expiration.
Based on these general rules, proposed subparagraph (c)(2) provides that the System will define a complex order as follows:
• A call butterfly spread for which the middle leg is to sell (buy) and twice the exercise price of that leg is greater than or equal to the sum of the exercise prices of the buy (sell) legs is a debit (credit) (because the “aggregate” exercise price of the sell (buy) leg is the same or higher than the “aggregate” exercise price of the buy (sell) legs and thus the sell (buy) leg is for the less (more) expensive option);
• a put butterfly spread for which the middle leg is to sell (buy) and twice the exercise price of that leg is less than or equal to the sum of the exercise prices of the buy (sell) legs is a debit (credit) (because the “aggregate” exercise price
• an order for which all pairs and loners are debits (credits) is a debit (credit).
A “pair” is a pair of legs in an order for which both legs are calls or both legs are puts, one leg is a buy and one leg is a sell, and both legs have the same expiration date but different exercise prices or, for all options except European-style index options, the same exercise price but different expiration dates. Based on the general option pricing rules described above, the System can determine whether a pair is a debit or credit. Being able to determine whether a pair of legs with the same exercise price but different expiration dates is a debit or credit is based on the general principle above that if two calls (puts) have the same exercise price, the price of the call (put) with the nearer expiration is less than the price of the call (put) with the farther expiration. As discussed above, this principle does not apply to European-style index options. Therefore, legs of complex orders for European-style index options may be paired only if they have the same expiration date but different exercise prices (and meet the other pairing criteria described above), but not if they have the same exercise price but different expiration dates—the System will skip this pairing step for European-style index options—and instead will be loners. A “loner” is any leg in an order that the System cannot pair with another leg in the order (including, as noted earlier in this paragraph, legs in orders for European-style index options that have the same exercise price but different expiration dates).
• A pair of calls is a credit (debit) if the exercise price of the buy (sell) is higher than the exercise price of the sell (buy) leg (if the pair has the same expiration date) or if the expiration date of the sell (buy) leg is farther than the expiration date of the buy (sell) leg (if the pair has the same exercise price).
• A pair of puts is a credit (debit) if the exercise price of the sell (buy) leg is higher than the exercise price of the buy (sell) leg (if the pair has the same expiration date) or if the expiration date of the sell (buy) leg is farther than the expiration date of the buy (sell) leg (if the pair has the same exercise price).
• A loner to buy is a debit.
• A loner to sell is a credit.
Based on this proposed provision, a vertical spread to buy one call (put) and sell one call (put) will have one pair. A vertical spread to buy more than one call (put) and sell more than one call (put) will have the same number of pairs as calls (puts) in each leg of the spread. For example, a vertical spread to buy three Jan 10 calls and three Jan 20 calls contains three identical pairs that each consist of a buy Jan 10 call and a sell Jan 20 call. Because the pairs are identical, they will all be debits or credits, and thus the System can define vertical spreads as debits or credits. The System would pair the orders in a vertical spread in accordance with the proposed provision set forth above to determine whether it is a credit or debit.
Below are a number of examples demonstrating how the System determines whether a complex order is a debit or credit, and whether the system will reject the order pursuant to the proposed check (for purposes of the examples, assume the orders are not for index options with European-style exercises).
A Trading Permit Holder enters a vertical spread to buy 10 Sept 30 XYZ calls and sell 10 Sept 20 XYZ calls at a net debit price of −$10.00. The System defines this order as a credit, because the buy leg is for the call with the higher exercise price (and is thus the less expensive leg). The System rejects the order back to the Trading Permit Holder because it is a limit order for a credit strategy that contains a net debit price.
A Trading Permit Holder submits a vertical spread to buy 20 Oct 30 XYZ puts and sell 20 Oct 20 XYZ puts at a net credit price of $9.00. The System defines this order as a debit, because the buy leg is for the put with the higher exercise price (and is thus the more expensive leg). The System rejects the order back to the Trading Permit Holder because it is a limit order for a debit strategy that contains a net credit price.
A Trading Permit Holder enters a market vertical spread to buy 30 Nov 20 XYZ calls and sell 30 Nov 10 XYZ calls. The System defines this order as a credit, because the buy leg is for the call with the higher exercise price (and is thus the less expensive leg). The current bid in the market for this strategy is a net debit price of −$20.00. The System rejects the order back to the Trading Permit Holder because it is a market order for a credit strategy that would otherwise be executed at a net debit price.
A Trading Permit Holder submits a market vertical spread to buy 10 Oct 20 XYZ puts and sell 10 Oct 10 XYZ put. The System defines this order as a debit, because the buy leg is for the put with the higher exercise price (and is thus the more expensive leg). The current offer in the market for this strategy is a net credit price of $8.00. The order executes at a net credit price of $8.00, because that is a more favorable execution for the Trading Permit Holder, and thus the price check would not block execution of this order.
A Trading Permit Holder submits a butterfly spread to sell 5 Jul 20 XYZ calls, buy 10 Jul 30 XYZ calls and sell 5 Jul 40 XYZ calls at a net debit price of −$15.00. The “aggregate” exercise price of the middle buy leg of 60 (2 × 30) is equal to the “aggregate” exercise price of the two outside sell legs of 60 (20 + 40), and thus the System defines this order as a credit. The System rejects the order back to the Trading Permit Holder because it is a limit order for a credit strategy with a net debit price.
A Trading Permit Holder submits a butterfly spread to buy 10 Feb 20 XYZ calls, sell 20 Feb 25 XYZ calls and buy 10 Feb 35 XYZ calls at a net credit price
A Trading Permit Holder submits a butterfly spread to sell 20 Aug 10 XYZ puts, buy 40 Aug 20 XYZ puts and sell 20 Aug XYZ 30 puts at a net debit price of −$20.00. The “aggregate” exercise price of the middle buy leg of 40 (2 × 20) is equal to the “aggregate” exercise price of the two outside sell legs of 40 (10 + 30), and thus the System defines this order as a credit. The System rejects the order back to the Trading Permit Holder because it is a limit order for a credit strategy with a net debit price.
A Trading Permit Holder submits a butterfly spread to buy 5 Apr 35 XYZ puts, sell 10 Apr 45 XYZ puts and buy 5 Apr 50 XYZ puts at a net credit price of $25.00. The “aggregate” exercise price of the middle sell leg of 90 (2 × 45) is more than the “aggregate” exercise price of the two outside legs of 85 (35 + 50), and thus the System cannot determine whether the order is a debit or credit. The System therefore does not block execution of this order based on this price check. If the exercise price of the middle leg was 40 (making the “aggregate” exercise price of that leg 80), the System would have defined this order as a debit and rejected the order back to the Trading Permit Holder, since it would be a limit order for a debit strategy with a net credit price.
A Trading Permit Holder submits a complex order to buy 1 Jan 10 XYZ calls, sell 2 Jan 20 XYZ calls and buy 1 Jan 15 XYZ put at a net debit price of −$8.00. The System pairs one of the sell Jan 20 calls with the buy Jan 10 call and defines it as a debit, because the buy leg is for the lower exercise price (and thus is more expensive). There are two loners remaining: the other sell Jan 20 call, which the System defines as a credit, and the buy Jan 15 put, which the System defines as a debit. Because not all pairs and loners are debits or credits (the pair and one loner are debits and the other loner is a credit), the System cannot determine whether the order is a debit or credit. The System therefore does not block execution of this order based on this price check.
A Trading Permit Holder submits a complex order to buy 1 Feb 15 XYZ call, to sell 1 Jan 15 XYZ call, to buy 1 Jun 15 XYZ put, and to sell 1 Apr 15 XYZ put at a net credit price of $12.00. The System pairs the two calls, which the System defines a debit (because the buy leg is for the call with the farther expiration date and is thus more expensive), and the two puts, which the System defines as a debit (because the buy leg is for the call with the farther expiration date and is thus more expensive). There are no loners. Because all pairs are debits, the System defines this order as a debit. The System rejects the order back to the Trading Permit Holder, since it is a limit order for a debit strategy with a net credit price.
A Trading Permit Holder submits a complex order with the following legs:
• Sell 1 Apr 10 XYZ put;
• buy 1 Mar 20 XYZ call;
• buy 1 Mar 25 XYZ call;
• buy 2 Mar 30 XYZ put;
• sell 2 Mar 35 XYZ put;
• buy 2 Jun 20 XYZ calls; and
• sell 2 Jul 20 XYZ calls.
The System pairs (i) the buy 1 Mar 20 call with one of the sell Jul 20 calls and (ii) one of the buy Jun 20 calls with the other sell Jul 20 calls (there are no call pairs with the same expiration date but different exercise prices). The System defines both of these call pairs as credits because the buy leg of each pair has the nearer expiration date and is thus less expensive. There are two loner calls remaining: The buy Mar 25 call and the other buy Jun 20 call, both of which the System defines as debits. The System then pairs (i) one of the buy Mar 30 puts with one of the sell Mar 35 puts and (ii) the other buy Mar 30 put with the other sell Mar 35 put. The System defines both of these put pairs as credits because the buy leg of each pair is for the lower exercise price (and is thus less expensive). The sell Apr 10 put is the remaining loner put, which the System defines as a credit. Because not all pairs and loners are debits or credits (four pairs and one loner are credits but two other loners are debits), the System cannot define the order as a debit or credit. The System therefore does not block execution of this order based on this price check.
To the extent a Trading Permit Holder submits a pair of orders to AIM, SAM or as a QCC orders, this proposed check will apply to both orders in the pair. If the System rejects either order in the pair pursuant to the applicable check, then the System will also cancel the paired order. As discussed above, it is the intent of these paired orders to execute against each other (with respect to AIM and SAM orders) or as a single transaction (with respect to QCC orders). Thus, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to reject both orders if one does not satisfy the price checks to be consistent with the intent of the submitted Trading Permit Holder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to an AIM order that instructs the System to process the agency order as an unpaired order if an AIM auction cannot be initiated (for example, because there are not three Market-Makers quoting in the series as required by Rule 6.74A(a)(4) or if the contra-side order does not stop the agency order at the price required by Rule 6.74A(a)(2) or (3)), if the System rejects the agency order pursuant to the applicable check, then the System will also reject the contra-side order. However, if the System rejects the contra-side order pursuant to the applicable check, the System will accept the agency order (assuming it satisfies the applicable check).
Proposed Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy .08(g) adds an additional price check for vertical, true butterfly and box spreads.
Specifically, proposed paragraph (g) states that if an order is a vertical, true butterfly or box spread, the System will not automatically execute a limit order for a net credit price or net debit price, or a market order for a debit strategy if it would execute at a net debit price, that is outside of an acceptable price range.
• The maximum possible value of a vertical spread is the difference between the exercise prices of the two legs.
• The maximum possible value of a true butterfly spread is the difference between the exercise prices of the middle leg and the legs on either side.
• The maximum possible value of a box spread is the difference between the exercise prices of each pair of legs.
• The minimum possible value of the spread is zero.
• The System will calculate the amount that is a percentage of the maximum possible value of the spread (the “percentage amount”), which percentage the Exchange will determine and announce to Trading Permit Holders by Regulatory Circular.
• The acceptable price range is zero to the maximum possible value of the spread plus:
• The percentage amount, if that amount is not outside a pre-set range (the Exchange will determine the pre-set range minimum and maximum amounts and announce them to Trading Permit Holders by Regulatory Circular);
• the pre-set minimum, if the percentage amount is less than the pre-set minimum; or
• the pre-set maximum, if the percentage amount is greater than the pre-set maximum.
Assume the pre-set range is 0.05 to 0.50 and the percentage is 5%. A Trading Permit Holder submits a complex order to buy 1 Aug 25 XYZ call and sell 1 Aug 30 XYZ call, which is a market order for a debit strategy. The maximum possible value of the vertical spread is $5 (30−25), and the percentage amount is 0.25 (5% of $5), which is within the pre-set range. Therefore, the acceptable price range is 0 to 5.25. The best net offer price is $6.60. The System rejects the order back to the Trading Permit Holder, because the order would otherwise execute at a price that is outside of the acceptable price range. If the market changed so that the best net offer price is $5.20 and the Trading Permit Holder resubmitted the order, the System would not block execution of the order, as the execution price would be within the acceptable price range.
Assume the pre-set range is 0.30 to 0.90 and the percentage is 2%. A Trading Permit Holder submits a complex order to buy 1 Nov 10 XYZ put, sell 2 Nov 20 XYZ puts and buy 1 Nov 30 XYZ, which is an order for a debit strategy with a net debit price of $7.00.
Assume the pre-set range is 0.20 to 0.60 and the percentage is 3%. A Trading Permit Holder submits a complex order to buy 1 Mar 45 XYZ call, sell 1 Mar 45 XYZ put, sell 1 Mar 20 XYZ call and buy 1 Mar 20 XYZ put, which is an order for a credit strategy with a net credit price of $28.00. The maximum possible value of the box spread is $25 (45−20), and the percentage amount is 0.75 (3% of $25), which is more than the pre-set range maximum amount of 0.60. Therefore, the acceptable price range is 0 to 25.60. The System rejects the order back to the Trading Permit Holder, because the net credit price of $28.00 is outside of the acceptable price range. If the Trading Permit Holder resubmitted the order with a net credit price of $24.00, the System would not block execution of the order, as the limit price is within the acceptable price range.
To the extent a Trading Permit Holder submits a pair of orders to AIM, SAM or as a QCC order, this proposed check will apply to both orders in the pair. If the System rejects either order in the pair pursuant to the applicable check, then the System will also cancel the paired order. As discussed above, it is the intent of these paired orders to execute against each other (with respect to AIM and SAM orders) or as a single transaction (with respect to QCC orders). Thus, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to reject both orders if
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed price protection mechanisms will protect investors and the public interest and maintain fair and orderly markets by mitigating potential risks associated with market participants entering orders at clearly unintended prices and orders trading at prices that are extreme and potentially erroneous, which may likely have resulted from human or operational error. The proposed put strike price and call underlying value checks of the reasonability of quotes and orders will assist in the maintenance of a fair and orderly market and protect investors by rejecting quotes and orders that exceed the corresponding benchmark (the strike price for puts and the value of the underlying for calls). The Exchange believes the additional risk control feature to reject a quote (both sides if entered as a two-sided quote) and cancel a Market-Maker's resting quote (on both sides) if the System rejects an updated/incoming quote in that series pursuant to this proposed price check is appropriate, because Market-Makers generally submit two-sided quotes, as their trading strategies and risk profiles are based in part on the spreads of their quotes, and rejecting or cancelling, as applicable, quotes on both sides of the series is consistent with this practice. The Exchange believes this operates as an additional safeguard that causes the Market-Maker to re-evaluate its quotes in the series before attempting to update its quotes again. Additionally, when a Market-Maker submits a new quote, that Market-Maker is implicitly instructing the Exchange to cancel any resting quote in the same series. Thus, even if the new quote is rejected as a result of this proposed check, the Market-Maker's implicit instruction to cancel the resting quote remains valid nonetheless. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to apply this check to auction responses, as these responses can cause erroneous executions in the same manner as bids and orders and thus should be subject to this proposed price protection to further help prevent potentially erroneous executions. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change regarding how the proposed check will apply to AIM, SAM and QCC orders is reasonable, as the proposed rule change is consistent with the contingencies attached to those types of orders.
In addition, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to not apply the call price check if that value is unavailable, because the proposed call price check references the last value of the underlying, or to an adjusted series, because trading of options in adjusted series may not accurately reflect the value of the underlying (as the new standard series would). Without the current value of the underlying or with a potentially inaccurate underlying value, if the System continued to attempt to perform the check, there is risk that the System may reject appropriately priced orders, quotes or responses, which could negatively impact market participants. Similarly, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to have the flexibility to not apply the call price check during Extended Trading Hours, as there may be no underlying value or the underlying value may not be appropriate to use due to decreased liquidity and trading during those hours. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to have the flexibility to disable the put or call check in response to a market event (for example, if dissemination of data was delayed and resulting in unreliable underlying values) to maintain a fair and orderly market. This will promote just and equitable principles of trade and ultimately protect investors.
The Exchange believes the quote inverting NBBO check will help mitigate the risks associated with the entry of quotes that are priced a specified number of ticks through the prevailing contra-side market, which the Exchange believes is evidence of an error with the quotes. By rejecting these quotes, the Exchange believes it is promoting just and equitable principles of trade by preventing potential price dislocation that could result from erroneous Market-Maker quotes sweeping through multiple price points resulting in executions that cross the NBBO. Specifically, the Exchange believes rejecting Market-Maker quotes that cross the NBBO (or the BBO when the NBBO is not available) by more than an acceptable tick distance will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and protect investors and the public interest because it would enable the Exchange to avoid the submission of erroneous quotes that otherwise may cause price dislocation before such quotes could cause harm to the market. Cancellation of any remaining size of a quote that would lock or cross the best disseminated price by an away exchange, and rejection of a quote that locks or crosses the NBBO if CBOE is not at the NBBO prevents trade-throughs and the display of locked of crossed market, consistent with the options linkage plan.
The Exchange believes that using a specified tick distance is appropriate because that is the parameter used for
Similar to the put strike price and call underlying value check, the Exchange believes the additional risk control feature to reject a quote (both sides if entered as a two-sided quote) and cancel a Market-Maker's resting quote (on both sides) if the System rejects an updated/incoming quote in that series pursuant to this proposed price check is appropriate, because Market-Makers generally submit two-sided quotes, as their trading strategies and risk profiles are based in part on the spreads of their quotes, and rejecting or cancelling, as applicable, quotes on both sides of the series is consistent with this practice. The Exchange believes this operates as an additional safeguard that causes the Market-Maker to re-evaluate its quotes in the series before attempting to update its quotes again. Additionally, when a Market-Maker submits a new quote, that Market-Maker is implicitly instructing the Exchange to cancel any resting quote in the same series. Thus, even if the new quote is rejected as a result of this proposed check, the Market-Maker's implicit instruction to cancel the resting quote remains valid nonetheless.
The Exchange believes it is appropriate to have the flexibility to determine not to apply this proposed check to quotes entered during the pre-opening, a trading rotation or a trading halt (and to apply this check to a quote entered during those times after trading opens or resumes, as applicable, and prior to their entry into the Book) so that the check does not impact the determination of the opening price or the entry of quotes during times when pricing may be volatile and inaccurate. Additionally, this check will not apply if a senior official at the Exchange's Help Desk determines it should not apply in the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market. Similarly, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to have this flexibility to determine times when the check should not apply to respond to market events, such as times of extreme price volatility. This assists the Exchange's maintenance of a fair and orderly market, which ultimately removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and protects investors and the public interest.
The proposed debit and credit price reasonability checks expand the applicability of the current check to additional complex orders for which the Exchange can determine whether the order is a debit or credit. By expanding the orders to which these checks apply, the Exchange can further assist with the maintenance of a fair and orderly market by mitigating the potential risks associated with additional complex orders trading at prices that are inconsistent with their strategies (which may result in executions at prices that are extreme and potentially erroneous), which ultimately protects investors. The Exchange believes the methodology the System will use to determine whether an order is a debit or credit is consistent with general option and volatility pricing principles, which the Exchange understands are used by market participants in their option pricing models and promote just and equitable principles of trade. Because one of these principles does not necessarily apply to European-style index options, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to not apply the aspect of this proposed price check based on that principle to those options classes. Additionally, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to not apply this proposed check to multi-class spreads, as these rules do not apply to pricing of legs in different classes. In addition, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to apply this check to auction responses, as these responses can cause erroneous executions in the same manner as bids and orders and thus should be subject to this proposed price protection to further help prevent potentially erroneous executions. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change regarding how the proposed check will apply to AIM, SAM and QCC orders is reasonable, as the proposed rule change is consistent with the contingencies attached to those pairs of orders. The nonsubstantive changes to this provision and the addition of defined strategies clarify the applicability of the price check using terms generally used throughout the industry, which will benefit investors.
The proposed maximum value acceptable price range will further assist with the maintenance of a fair and orderly market by helping to mitigate the potential risks associated with orders that have strategies with quantifiable maximum possible values trading at prices that are extreme or “too far away” from that value and thus that are potentially erroneous. While the Exchange believes Trading Permit Holders are generally willing to accept executions at prices that exceed the maximum possible value of the applicable spread to a certain extent, executions that exceed the maximum possible value by too much may be erroneous. The Exchange believes the methodology to determine the acceptable price range is reasonable because using a percentage amount provides Trading Permit Holders with precise protection, while the pre-set range amounts ensure that, with respect to strategies with larger or smaller maximum values, the acceptable price range cannot be too wide or narrow to the point that the price check would become ineffective. The Exchange believes blocking these potentially erroneous executions are consistent with expectations of Trading Permit Holders with respect to these strategies and will thus protect investors. As discussed above, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to apply this check to auction responses, as these responses can cause erroneous executions in the same manner as bids and orders and thus should be subject to this proposed price protection to further help prevent potentially erroneous executions. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change regarding how the proposed check will apply to AIM, SAM and QCC orders is reasonable, as the proposed rule change is consistent with the contingencies attached to those pairs of orders.
Three of the proposed price checks are substantially similar to those included in other options exchanges' rules:
• The put strike price and call underlying value checks are substantially similar to NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) Rule 6.61(a)(2) and (3) (note that CBOE's proposed checks apply to orders and quotes (as well as auction responses) while NYSE Arca's checks apply only to quotes);
• the quote price reasonability check is substantially similar to NYSE Arca Rule 6.61(a)(1) (note that NYSE Arca
• the maximum value acceptable price range is substantially similar to NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (“PHLX”) Rule 1080, Interpretation and Policy .07(g) (note that the PHLX rule applies to vertical and time spreads, while the proposed rule applies to vertical, true butterfly and box spreads).
The fourth price check is an expansion of the applicability of a price check already included in CBOE's rules.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change adds price protection mechanisms for orders and quotes of all Trading Permit Holders submitted to CBOE to help further prevent potentially erroneous executions, which benefits all market participants. The price checks apply to all incoming orders and quotes of all Trading Permit Holders in the same manner. The quote price reasonability check applies only to Market-Maker quotes, because the Rules currently have a similar price check that applies to orders. Additionally, the Exchange believes this type of protection for Market-Makers is appropriate given their unique role in the market and may encourage Market-Makers to quote tighter and deeper markets, which will increase liquidity and enhance competition, given the additional protection these price checks provide. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would provide market participants with additional protection from anomalous or erroneous executions.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, 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 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to enhance current and adopt new price protection mechanisms for orders and quotes. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange has in place various price check mechanisms that are designed to prevent incoming orders from automatically executing at potentially erroneous prices.
Proposed Rule 6.17(d) provides price protections for simple orders to buy put and call options based on the strike price or underlying value, respectively. The proposed rule provides that the System
With respect to put options, a Participant seeks to buy an option that could be exercised into the right to sell the underlying. The value of a put can never exceed the strike price of the option, even if the underlying goes to zero. For example, one put for stock ABC with a strike price of $50 gives the holder the right to sell 100 shares of ABC for $50, no more or less. Therefore, it would be illogical to pay more than $50 for the right to sell shares of ABC, regardless of the price of ABC. Pursuant to proposed Rule 6.17(d)(i)(A), the Exchange would deem any put bid or buyer order with a price that equals or exceeds the strike price of the option to be erroneous, and the Exchange believes it would be appropriate to reject these bids and buy orders.
With respect to call options, a Participant seeks to buy an option that could be exercised into the right to buy the underlying. The Exchange does not believe that a derivative product that conveys the right to buy the underlying should ever be priced higher than the prevailing value of the underlying itself. In that case, a market participant could just purchase the underlying at the prevailing value rather than pay a larger amount for the call. Accordingly, pursuant to proposed Rule 6.17(d)(i)(B), the Exchange believes it is appropriate to reject bids or buy orders for call options with prices that are equal to or in excess of the value of the underlying. As an example, suppose a Participant submits Order 1 to buy an ABC call for $8 and Order 2 to buy an ABC call for $11 when the last sale price for stock ABC is $10. Because the price to buy for Order 2 is greater than the last sale price of the underlying, the System will reject Order 2. The System will either execute or book Order 1 in accordance with C2's rules.
Pursuant to the proposed rule, with respect to equity and ETF options, the Exchange would use the consolidated last sale price of the underlying security, with respect to equity and ETF options, and the last disseminated value of the underlying index, with respect to index options. The Exchange notes that, in certain circumstances, the last sale price or index value, as applicable, may be from the close of the previous trading day. These circumstances include during the pre-opening period or a delayed opening.
As an additional risk control feature, if a Market-Maker submits a quote in a series in which the Market-Maker already has a resting quote (thus, was attempting to update a quote) and the System rejects that quote pursuant to either of these proposed checks, the System will cancel the Market-Maker's resting quote
As an example, suppose a Market-Maker has a resting two-sided quote in Series 1 for stock ABC of 14.00 to 16.00. The options in Series 1 are puts with a strike price of $18.00. The Market-Maker submits an updated two-sided quote of 18.00 to 19.00. Because the quote bid is the same as the strike price for Series 1, the System will reject the 18.00 quote bid and the 19.00 quote offer. Additionally, the System will cancel the Market-Maker's resting quote in Series 1 of 14.00 to 16.00. The Market-Maker then submits a new two-sided quote of 16.00 to 17.00, which the System accepts.
Proposed Rule 6.17(d)(ii) provides that the Exchange may determine not to apply to a class either the put check or the call check described above if a senior official at the Exchange's Help Desk determines it should not apply in the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market.
To the extent a Participant submits a pair of orders to AIM
Currently, the Exchange applies price reasonability checks to limit orders.
As an additional risk control feature, if a Market-Maker submits a quote in a series in which the Market-Maker already has a resting quote (thus, was attempting to update a quote) and the System rejects that quote pursuant to this proposed check, the System will cancel the Market-Maker's resting quote
For example, suppose the Exchange has set a tick distance of three in a class. The minimum increment for that class is $0.05 for series quoted below $3 and $0.10 for series quotes at $3 and above,
Proposed Rule 6.17(e)(ii) provides that the Exchange may determine not to apply this proposed check to quotes entered during the pre-opening, a trading rotation or a trading halt, which it will announce to Participants by Regulatory Circular. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to have the ability to not apply this check during the pre-open or opening rotation so that the check does not impact the determination of the opening price. However, the Exchange may determine that there is sufficient information during those times (such as if another exchange is disseminating pricing
Proposed Rule 6.17(e)(iii) states that if the System accepts a quote that locks or crosses the NBBO (which may occur if the proposed check is not applied to a quote pursuant to the proposed rule or if a quote inverts the NBBO but by no more than the specified number of ticks), the System will execute the quote bid (offer) against quotes and orders in the book at a price(s) that is the same or better than the best price disseminated by away exchanges up to the size available on the Exchange. If there is any remaining size of the quote after this execution, the System either (i) cancels any remaining size of the quote, if the price of the quote locks or crosses the price disseminated by the away exchange(s) or (ii) books any remaining size of the quote, if the price of the quote does not lock or cross the price of the away exchange(s). While the Exchange believes Market-Makers are generally willing to accept executions of their quotes that exceed the NBBO to a certain extent, it also believes executions of quotes that exceed the NBBO by too much may be potentially erroneous executions. The Exchange believes blocking these potentially erroneous executions is consistent with expectations of Market-Makers and helps them manage their risk. Cancelling the remaining size of the quote after it partially executes against orders and quotes on the Exchange if the remaining size would be at a price that locks or crosses the best price disseminated from an away market is similarly intended to prevent trade-throughs and displays of crossed markets. Similarly, rejecting quotes that would lock or cross the NBBO if C2 was not at the NBBO is intended to prevent trade-throughs and displays of locked and crossed markets. Unlike orders that may be routed to other options exchanges for executions, quotes may only execute against quotes or orders on C2. Thus, if C2 is not at the NBBO, a quote may not execute against a quote or order that is at the NBBO.
For example, suppose the NBBO is 1.00 to 1.20, and a Market-Maker submits a quote bid for 100 contracts at 1.24. Assuming this class has a minimum increment of 0.01 and the Exchange set the tick distance for this check at five, the System accepts this quote because it only inverts the NBO by four ticks. C2 has an order to sell 10 at 1.20, an order to sell 20 at 1.21, an order to sell 10 at 1.22, an order to sell 10 at 1.23 and an order to sell 20 at 1.24 resting on the book. The best offer disseminated by an away exchange is 1.23. The incoming quote bid will execute against the order to sell at 1.20 (10 contracts), the order to sell at 1.21 (20 contracts), the order to sell at 1.22 (10 contracts) and the order to sell at 1.23 (10 contracts), for a total of 50 contracts. The quote will not execute against the order to sell at 1.24, because that would result in a trade-through of the best disseminated offer from an away exchange of 1.23. The System cancels the remaining 50 contracts, because the bid price of 1.23 would invert the best disseminated market from an away exchange. If, instead, the quote bid in the above example was for 1.22 rather than 1.24, it would execute against the order to sell at 1.20 (10 contracts), the order to sell at 1.21 (20 contracts) and the order to sell at 1.22 (10 contracts). The System would book the remaining 60 contracts of the quote at the bid price of 1.22, which would not lock or cross the best disseminated offer by an away exchange (1.23 in the above example). Alternatively, if in the above example the NBO of 1.20 was disseminated from an away exchange, the System would reject the quote bid of 1.24, because it would cross the best disseminated offer of an away exchange.
Current Rule 6.13, Interpretation and Policy .04(c) provides that the System will not automatically execute certain vertical and butterfly complex orders
The proposed rule change expands the applicability of this price check to all complex orders for which the System can determine whether they are debits (orders to buy) or credits (orders to sell). The proposed rule change simplifies the current rule text in subparagraphs (c)(1) and (2) and combines them into proposed subparagraph (c)(1) to state that the System will not automatically execute a limit order for a debit strategy with a net credit price, a limit order for a credit strategy with a net debit price, or a market order for a credit strategy that would be executed at a net debit price.
The System determines whether an order is a debit or credit based on general options volatility and pricing principles, which the Exchange understands are used by market participants in their option pricing models. With respect to options with the same underlying:
• If two calls have the same expiration date, the price of the call with the lower exercise price is more than the price of the call with the higher exercise price;
• if two puts have the same expiration date, the price of the put with the higher exercise price is more than the price of the put with the lower exercise price; and
• if two calls (puts) have the same exercise price, the price of the call (put) with the nearer expiration is less than the price of the call (put) with the farther expiration.
The principles in the first two bullets are based on the standard trading principle of “buy low, sell high.” The ability to buy stock at a lower price is more valuable than the ability to buy stock at a higher price, and thus a call with a lower strike price has more value, and thus is more expensive, than a call with a higher strike price. Similarly, the ability to sell stock at a higher price is more valuable than the ability to sell stock at a lower price, and thus a put with a higher strike price has more value, and thus is more expensive, than a put with a lower strike price. The principle in the last bullet is based on the general concept that locking in a price further into the future involves more risk for the buyer and seller and thus is more valuable, making an option (call or put) with a farther expiration more expensive than an option with a nearer expiration. This is similar, for example, to interest rates for mortgages: In general, an interest rate on a 30-year mortgage is higher than the interest rate on a 15-year mortgage due to the risk of potential interest rate changes over the longer period of time to both the mortgagor and mortgagee.
Based on these general rules, proposed subparagraph (c)(2) provides that the System will define a complex order as follows:
• A call butterfly spread for which the middle leg is to sell (buy) and twice the exercise price of that leg is greater than or equal to the sum of the exercise prices of the buy (sell) legs is a debit (credit) (because the “aggregate” exercise price of the sell (buy) leg is the same or higher than the “aggregate” exercise price of the buy (sell) legs and thus the sell (buy) leg is for the less (more) expensive option);
• a put butterfly spread for which the middle leg is to sell (buy) and twice the exercise price of that leg is less than or equal to the sum of the exercise prices of the buy (sell) legs is a debit (credit) (because the “aggregate” exercise price of the sell (buy) leg is the same or less than the “aggregate” exercise price of the buy (sell) leg and thus the sell (buy) leg is for the less (more) expensive option); and
• an order for which all pairs and loners are debits (credits) is a debit (credit).
The Exchange believes that these categories are consistent with Participants' expectations of pricing for these strategies.
A “pair” is a pair of legs in an order for which both legs are calls or both legs are puts, one leg is a buy and one leg is a sell, and both legs have the same expiration date but different exercise prices or, for all options except European-style index options, the same exercise price but different expiration dates. Based on the general option pricing rules described above, the System can determine whether a pair is a debit or credit. Being able to determine whether a pair of legs with the same exercise price but different expiration dates is a debit or credit is based on the general principle above that if two calls (puts) have the same exercise price, the price of the call (put) with the nearer expiration is less than the price of the call (put) with the farther expiration. As discussed above, this principle does not apply to European-style index options. Therefore, legs of complex orders for European-style index options may be paired only if they have the same expiration date but different exercise prices (and meet the other pairing criteria described above), but not if they have the same exercise price but different expiration dates—the System will skip this pairing step for European-style index options—and instead will be loners. A “loner” is any leg in an order that the System cannot pair with another leg in the order (including, as noted earlier in this paragraph, legs in orders for European-style index options that have the same exercise price but different expiration dates).
• A pair of calls is a credit (debit) if the exercise price of the buy (sell) is higher than the exercise price of the sell (buy) leg (if the pair has the same expiration date) or if the expiration date of the sell (buy) leg is farther than the expiration date of the buy (sell) leg (if the pair has the same exercise price).
• A pair of puts is a credit (debit) if the exercise price of the sell (buy) leg is higher than the exercise price of the buy (sell) leg (if the pair has the same expiration date) or if the expiration date of the sell (buy) leg is farther than the expiration date of the buy (sell) leg (if the pair has the same exercise price).
• A loner to buy is a debit.
• A loner to sell is a credit.
If the System cannot determine whether a complex order is a debit or credit based on these categories, it will not apply this proposed check to the order.
Based on this proposed provision, a vertical spread to buy one call (put) and sell one call (put) will have one pair. A vertical spread to buy more than one call (put) and sell more than one call (put) will have the same number of pairs as calls (puts) in each leg of the spread. For example, a vertical spread to buy three Jan 10 calls and three Jan 20 calls contains three identical pairs that each consist of a buy Jan 10 call and a sell Jan 20 call. Because the pairs are identical, they will all be debits or credits, and thus the System can define vertical spreads as debits or credits. The System would pair the orders in a vertical spread in accordance with the proposed provision set forth above to determine whether it is a credit or debit.
Below are a number of examples demonstrating how the System determines whether a complex order is a debit or credit, and whether the system will reject the order pursuant to the proposed check (for purposes of these examples, assume the orders are not for European-style index options).
A Participant enters a vertical spread to buy 10 Sept 30 XYZ calls and sell 10 Sept 20 XYZ calls at a net debit price
A Participant submits a vertical spread to buy 20 Oct 30 XYZ puts and sell 20 Oct 20 XYZ puts at a net credit price of $9.00. The System defines this order as a debit, because the buy leg is for the put with the higher exercise price (and is thus the more expensive leg). The System rejects the order back to the Participant because it is a limit order for a debit strategy that contains a net credit price.
A Participant enters a market vertical spread to buy 30 Nov 20 XYZ calls and sell 30 Nov 10 XYZ calls. The System defines this order as a credit, because the buy leg is for the call with the higher exercise price (and is thus the less expensive leg). The current bid in the market for this strategy is a net debit price of −$20.00. The System rejects the order back to the Participant because it is a market order for a credit strategy that would otherwise be executed at a net debit price.
A Participant submits a market vertical spread to buy 10 Oct 20 XYZ puts and sell 10 Oct 10 XYZ put. The System defines this order as a debit, because the buy leg is for the put with the higher exercise price (and is thus the more expensive leg). The current offer in the market for this strategy is a net credit price of $8.00. The order executes at a net credit price of $8.00, because that is a more favorable execution for the Participant, and thus the price check would not block execution of this order.
A Participant submits a butterfly spread to sell 5 Jul 20 XYZ calls, buy 10 Jul 30 XYZ calls and sell 5 Jul 40 XYZ calls at a net debit price of −$15.00. The “aggregate” exercise price of the middle buy leg of 60 (2 × 30) is equal to the “aggregate” exercise price of the two outside sell legs of 60 (20 + 40), and thus the System defines this order as a credit. The System rejects the order back to the Participant because it is a limit order for a credit strategy with a net debit price.
Example #6—Limit Call Butterfly Spread (Buy 2 Outside Legs, Sell Middle Leg)
A Participant submits a butterfly spread to buy 10 Feb 20 XYZ calls, sell 20 Feb 25 XYZ calls and buy 10 Feb 35 XYZ calls at a net credit price of $20.00. The “aggregate” exercise price of the middle sell leg of 50 (2 × 25) is less than the “aggregate” exercise price of the two outside legs of 55 (20 + 35), and thus the System cannot determine whether the order is to buy or sell. The System therefore does not block execution of this order based on this price check. If the exercise price of the middle leg was 30 (making the “aggregate” exercise price of that leg 60), the System would have defined this order as a debit and rejected the order back to the Participant, since it would be an order for a debit strategy with a net credit price.
A Participant submits a butterfly spread to sell 20 Aug 10 XYZ puts, buy 40 Aug 20 XYZ puts and sell 20 Aug XYZ 30 puts at a net debit price of −$20.00. The “aggregate” exercise price of the middle buy leg of 40 (2 × 20) is equal to the “aggregate” exercise price of the two outside sell legs of 40 (10 + 30), and thus the System defines this order as a credit. The System rejects the order back to the Participant because it is a limit order for a credit strategy with a net debit price.
A Participant submits a butterfly spread to buy 5 Apr 35 XYZ puts, sell 10 Apr 45 XYZ puts and buy 5 Apr 50 XYZ puts at a net credit price of $25.00. The “aggregate” exercise price of the middle sell leg of 90 (2 × 45) is more than the “aggregate” exercise price of the two outside legs of 85 (35 + 50), and thus the System cannot determine whether the order is a debit or credit. The System therefore does not block execution of this order based on this price check. If the exercise price of the middle leg was 40 (making the “aggregate” exercise price of that leg 80), the System would have defined this order as a debit and rejected the order back to the Participant, since it would be a limit order for a debit strategy with a net credit price.
A Participant submits a complex order to buy 1 Jan 10 XYZ calls, sell 2 Jan 20 XYZ calls and buy 1 Jan 15 XYZ put at a net debit price of −$8.00. The System pairs one of the sell Jan 20 calls with the buy Jan 10 call and defines it as a debit, because the buy leg is for the lower exercise price (and thus is more expensive). There are two loners remaining: the other sell Jan 20 call, which the System defines as a credit, and the buy Jan 15 put, which the System defines as a debit. Because not all pairs and loners are debits or credits (the pair and one loner are debits and the other loner is a credit), the System cannot determine whether the order is a debit or credit. The System therefore does not block execution of this order based on this price check.
A Participant submits a complex order to buy 1 Feb 15 XYZ call, to sell 1 Jan 15 XYZ call, to buy 1 Jun 15 XYZ put, and to sell 1 Apr 15 XYZ put at a net credit price of $12.00. The System pairs the two calls, which the System defines a debit (because the buy leg is for the call with the farther expiration date and is thus more expensive), and the two puts, which the System defines as a debit (because the buy leg is for the call with the farther expiration date and is thus more expensive). There are no loners. Because all pairs are debits, the System defines this order as a debit. The System rejects the order back to the Participant, since it is a limit order for a debit strategy with a net credit price.
A Participant submits a complex order with the following legs:
• Sell 1 Apr 10 XYZ put;
• buy 1 Mar 20 XYZ call;
• buy 1 Mar 25 XYZ call;
• buy 2 Mar 30 XYZ put;
• sell 2 Mar 35 XYZ put;
• buy 2 Jun 20 XYZ calls; and
• sell 2 Jul 20 XYZ calls.
The System pairs (i) the buy 1 Mar 20 call with one of the sell Jul 20 calls and (ii) one of the buy Jun 20 calls with the other sell Jul 20 calls (there are no call pairs with the same expiration date but different exercise prices). The System defines both of these call pairs as credits because the buy leg of each pair has the nearer expiration date and is thus less expensive. There are two loner calls remaining: The buy Mar 25 call and the other buy Jun 20 call, both of which the System defines as debits. The System then pairs (i) one of the buy Mar 30 puts with one of the sell Mar 35 puts and (ii) the other buy Mar 30 put with the other sell Mar 35 put. The System defines both of these put pairs as credits because the buy leg of each pair is for the lower exercise price (and is thus less expensive). The sell Apr 10 put is the remaining loner put, which the System defines as a credit. Because not all pairs and loners are debits or credits (four pairs and one loner are credits but two other loners are debits), the System cannot define the order as a debit or credit. The System therefore does not block execution of this order based on this price check.
To the extent a Participant submits a pair of orders to AIM or SAM, this proposed check will apply to both orders in the pair. If the System rejects either order in the pair pursuant to the applicable check, then the System will also cancel the paired order. As discussed above, it is the intent of these paired orders to execute against each other. Thus, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to reject both orders if one does not satisfy the price checks to be consistent with the intent of the submitting Participant. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to an AIM order that instructs the System to process the agency order as an unpaired order if an AIM auction cannot be initiated (for example, if the contra-side order does not stop the agency order at the price required by Rule 6.51(a)(2)), if the System rejects the agency order pursuant to the applicable check, then the System will also reject the contra-side order. However, if the System rejects the contra-side order pursuant to the applicable check, the System will accept the agency order (assuming it satisfies the applicable check).
Proposed Rule 6.13, Interpretation and Policy .04(h) adds an additional price check for vertical, true butterfly and box spreads.
Specifically, proposed paragraph (h) states that if an order is a vertical, true butterfly or box spread, the System will not automatically execute a limit order for a net credit price or net debit price, or a market order for a debit strategy if it would execute at a net debit price, that is outside of an acceptable price range.
• The maximum possible value of a vertical spread is the difference between the exercise prices of the two legs.
• The maximum possible value of a true butterfly spread is the difference between the exercise prices of the middle leg and the legs on either side.
• The maximum possible value of a box spread is the difference between the exercise prices of each pair of legs.
• The minimum possible value of the spread is zero.
• The System will calculate the amount that is a percentage of the maximum possible value of the spread (the “percentage amount”), which percentage the Exchange will determine and announce to Participants by Regulatory Circular.
• The acceptable price range is zero to the maximum possible value of the spread plus:
• The percentage amount, if that amount is not outside a pre-set range (the Exchange will determine the pre-set range minimum and maximum amounts and announce them to Participants by Regulatory Circular);
• the pre-set minimum, if the percentage amount is less than the pre-set minimum; or
• the pre-set maximum, if the percentage amount is greater than the pre-set maximum.
The System will reject back to the Participant any limit order, and cancel any market order (or remaining size after partial execution of the order), that does not satisfy this proposed check.
Assume the pre-set range is 0.05 to 0.50 and the percentage is 5%. A Participant submits a complex order to buy 1 Aug 25 XYZ call and sell 1 Aug 30 XYZ call, which is a market order for a debit strategy. The maximum possible value of the vertical spread is $5 (30−25), and the percentage amount is 0.25 (5% of $5), which is within the pre-set range. Therefore, the acceptable price range is 0 to 5.25. The best net offer price is $6.60. The System rejects the order back to the Participant, because the order would otherwise execute at a price that is outside of the acceptable price range. If the market changed so that the best net offer price is $5.20 and the Participant resubmitted the order, the System would not block
Assume the pre-set range is 0.30 to 0.90 and the percentage is 2%. A Participant submits a complex order to buy 1 Nov 10 XYZ put, sell 2 Nov 20 XYZ puts and buy 1 Nov 30 XYZ, which is an order for a debit strategy with a net debit price of $7.00.
Assume the pre-set range is 0.20 to 0.60 and the percentage is 3%. A Participant submits a complex order to buy 1 Mar 45 XYZ call, sell 1 Mar 45 XYZ put, sell 1 Mar 20 XYZ call and buy 1 Mar 20 XYZ put, which is an order for a credit strategy with a net credit price of $28.00. The maximum possible value of the box spread is $25 (45−20), and the percentage amount is 0.75 (3% of $25), which is more than the pre-set range maximum amount of 0.60. Therefore, the acceptable price range is 0 to 25.60. The System rejects the order back to the Participant, because the net credit price of $28.00 is outside of the acceptable price range. If the Participant resubmitted the order with a net credit price of $24.00, the System would not block execution of the order, as the limit price is within the acceptable price range.
To the extent a Participant submits a pair of orders to AIM or SAM, this proposed check will apply to both orders in the pair. If the System rejects either order in the pair pursuant to the applicable check, then the System will also cancel the paired order. As discussed above, it is the intent of these paired orders to execute against each other. Thus, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to reject both orders if one does not satisfy the price checks to be consistent with the intent of the submitted Participant. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to an AIM order that instructs the System to process the agency order as an unpaired order if an AIM auction cannot be initiated (for example, if the contra-side order does not stop the agency order at the price required by Rule 6.51(a)(2)), if the System rejects the agency order pursuant to the applicable check, then the System will also reject the contra-side order. However, if the System rejects the contra-side order pursuant to the applicable check, the System will accept the agency order (assuming it satisfies the applicable check).
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed price protection mechanisms will protect investors and the public interest and maintain fair and orderly markets by mitigating potential risks associated with market participants entering orders at clearly unintended prices and orders trading at prices that are extreme and potentially erroneous, which may likely have resulted from human or operational error. The proposed put strike price and call underlying value checks of the reasonability of quotes and orders will assist in the maintenance of a fair and orderly market and protect investors by rejecting quotes and orders that exceed the corresponding benchmark (the strike price for puts and the value of the underlying for calls). The Exchange believes the additional risk control feature to reject a quote (both sides if entered as a two-sided quote) and cancel a Market-Maker's resting quote (on both sides) if the System rejects an updated/incoming quote in that series pursuant to this proposed price check is appropriate, because Market-Makers generally submit two-sided quotes, as their trading strategies and risk profiles are based in part on the spreads of their quotes, and rejecting or cancelling, as applicable, quotes on both sides of the series is consistent with this practice. The Exchange believes this operates as an additional safeguard that causes the Market-Maker to re-evaluate its quotes in the series before attempting to update its quotes again. Additionally, when a Market-Maker submits a new quote, that Market-Maker is implicitly instructing the Exchange to cancel any resting quote in the same series. Thus, even if the new quote is rejected as a result of this proposed check, the Market-Maker's implicit instruction to cancel the resting quote remains valid nonetheless. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to apply this check to auction responses, as these responses can cause erroneous executions in the same manner as bids and orders and thus should be subject to this proposed price protection to further help prevent potentially erroneous executions. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change regarding how the proposed check will apply to AIM and SAM orders is reasonable, as the proposed rule change is consistent with the contingencies attached to those types of orders.
In addition, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to not apply the call price check if that value is unavailable, because the proposed call price check references the last value of the underlying, or to an adjusted series, because trading of options in adjusted series may not accurately reflect the value of the underlying (as the new standard series would). Without the current value of the underlying or with a potentially inaccurate underlying value, if the System continued to attempt to perform the check, there is risk that the System may reject appropriately priced orders, quotes or
The Exchange believes the quote inverting NBBO check will help mitigate the risks associated with the entry of quotes that are priced a specified number of ticks through the prevailing contra-side market, which the Exchange believes is evidence of an error with the quotes. By rejecting these quotes, the Exchange believes it is promoting just and equitable principles of trade by preventing potential price dislocation that could result from erroneous Market-Maker quotes sweeping through multiple price points resulting in executions that cross the NBBO. Specifically, the Exchange believes rejecting Market-Maker quotes that cross the NBBO (or the BBO when the NBBO is not available) by more than an acceptable tick distance will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and protect investors and the public interest because it would enable the Exchange to avoid the submission of erroneous quotes that otherwise may cause price dislocation before such quotes could cause harm to the market. Cancellation of any remaining size of a quote that would lock or cross the best disseminated price by an away exchange, and rejection of a quote that locks or crosses the NBBO if C2 is not at the NBBO prevents trade-throughs and the display of locked of crossed market, consistent with the options linkage plan.
The Exchange believes that using a specified tick distance is appropriate because that is the parameter used for the corresponding limit order reasonability check and because it provides Market-Makers a precise price protection. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to be able to set the acceptable tick distance to be tighter for the quote price reasonability check to provide additional protection to Market-Makers given their unique role in the market, which could encourage Market-Makers to quote tighter and deeper markets and thus enhance liquidity. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to execute quotes that are no more than the specified number of ticks away from the NBBO, because while the Exchange believes Market-Makers are generally willing to accept executions of their quotes that exceed the NBBO to a certain extent, it also believes executions of quotes that exceed the NBBO by too much may be erroneous. The Exchange believes blocking these potentially erroneous executions is consistent with expectations of Market-Makers and helps them manage their risk, and thus benefits investors and promotes just and equitable principles of trade.
Similar to the put strike price and call underlying value check, the Exchange believes the additional risk control feature to reject a quote (both sides if entered as a two-sided quote) and cancel a Market-Maker's resting quote (on both sides) if the System rejects an updated/incoming quote in that series pursuant to this proposed price check is appropriate, because Market-Makers generally submit two-sided quotes, as their trading strategies and risk profiles are based in part on the spreads of their quotes, and rejecting or cancelling, as applicable, quotes on both sides of the series is consistent with this practice. The Exchange believes this operates as an additional safeguard that causes the Market-Maker to re-evaluate its quotes in the series before attempting to update its quotes again. Additionally, when a Market-Maker submits a new quote, that Market-Maker is implicitly instructing the Exchange to cancel any resting quote in the same series. Thus, even if the new quote is rejected as a result of this proposed check, the Market-Maker's implicit instruction to cancel the resting quote remains valid nonetheless.
The Exchange believes it is appropriate to have the flexibility to determine not to apply this proposed check to quotes entered during the pre-opening, a trading rotation or a trading halt (and to apply this check to a quote entered during those times after trading opens or resumes, as applicable, and prior to their entry into the Book) so that the check does not impact the determination of the opening price or the entry of quotes during times when pricing may be volatile and inaccurate. Additionally, this check will not apply if a senior official at the Exchange's Help Desk determines it should not apply in the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market. Similarly, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to have this flexibility to determine times when the check should not apply to respond to market events, such as times of extreme price volatility. This assists the Exchange's maintenance of a fair and orderly market, which ultimately removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and protects investors and the public interest.
The proposed debit and credit price reasonability checks expand the applicability of the current check to additional complex orders for which the Exchange can determine whether the order is a debit or credit. By expanding the orders to which these checks apply, the Exchange can further assist with the maintenance of a fair and orderly market by mitigating the potential risks associated with additional complex orders trading at prices that are inconsistent with their strategies (which may result in executions at prices that are extreme and potentially erroneous), which ultimately protects investors. The Exchange believes the methodology the System will use to determine whether an order is a debit or credit is consistent with general option and volatility pricing principles, which the Exchange understands are used by market participants in their option pricing models and promote just and equitable principles of trade. Because one of these principles does not necessarily apply to European-style index options, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to not apply the aspect of this proposed price check based on that principle to those options classes. In addition, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to apply this check to auction responses, as these responses can cause erroneous executions in the same manner as bids and orders and thus should be subject to this proposed price protection to further help prevent potentially erroneous executions. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change regarding how the proposed check will apply to AIM and SAM orders is reasonable, as the proposed rule change is consistent with the contingencies attached to those pairs of orders. The nonsubstantive changes to this provision and the addition of defined strategies clarify the applicability of the price check using terms generally used throughout the industry, which will benefit investors.
The proposed maximum value acceptable price range will further assist with the maintenance of a fair and orderly market by helping to mitigate the potential risks associated with orders that have strategies with quantifiable maximum possible values trading at prices that are extreme or “too far away” from that value and thus that are potentially erroneous. While the Exchange believes Participants are generally willing to accept executions at prices that exceed the maximum possible value of the applicable spread to a certain extent, executions that exceed the maximum possible value by
Three of the proposed price checks are substantially similar to those included in other options exchanges' rules:
• The put strike price and call underlying value checks are substantially similar to NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) Rule 6.61(a)(2) and (3) (note that C2's proposed checks apply to orders and quotes (as well as auction responses) while NYSE Arca's checks apply only to quotes);
• the quote price reasonability check is substantially similar to NYSE Arca Rule 6.61(a)(1) (note that NYSE Arca uses percentage and dollar thresholds, which is consistent with the parameters used in its limit order price check, while the proposed rule uses tick distance, which is consistent with the parameters used in C2's limit order price check); and
• the maximum value acceptable price range is substantially similar to NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (“PHLX”) Rule 1080, Interpretation and Policy .07(g) (note that the PHLX rule applies to vertical and time spreads, while the proposed rule applies to vertical, true butterfly and box spreads).
The fourth price check is an expansion of the applicability of a price check already included in C2's rules.
C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change adds price protection mechanisms for orders and quotes of all Participants submitted to C2 to help further prevent potentially erroneous executions, which benefits all market participants. The price checks apply to all incoming orders and quotes of all Participants in the same manner. The quote price reasonability check applies only to Market-Maker quotes, because the Rules currently have a similar price check that applies to orders. Additionally, the Exchange believes this type of protection for Market-Makers is appropriate given their unique role in the market and may encourage Market-Makers to quote tighter and deeper markets, which will increase liquidity and enhance competition, given the additional protection these price checks provide. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would provide market participants with additional protection from anomalous or erroneous executions.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, 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”),
Nasdaq is proposing changes to amend Nasdaq Rule 7018(a), governing fees and credits assessed for execution and routing of securities.
While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the proposed amendments to be operative on December 1, 2015.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Nasdaq Rule 7018, governing fees and credits assessed for execution and routing of securities listed on Nasdaq,
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to increase a current credit tier for all three Tapes from $0.0029 per share executed to $0.00295 per share executed. Specifically, this credit tier is available to members for displayed quotes/orders (other than supplemental orders or designated retail orders) that provide liquidity and, as stated in Nasdaq Rule 7018(a)(1), (2) and (3), “Adds Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options of 1.15% or more of total industry ADV in the customer clearing range for Equity and ETF option contracts per day in a month on the Nasdaq Options Market”.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, for example, the Commission indicated that market forces should generally determine the price of non-core market data because national market system regulation “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . .”
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change to Nasdaq Rule 7018(a)(1), (2) and (3) is reasonable because it is competitive with the credits of other exchanges and also may result in increased participation in the marketplace. Currently, for all three Tapes a member receives a credit of $0.0029 per share executed for displayed quotes/orders (other than supplemental orders or designated retail orders) that provide liquidity and, as stated in Nasdaq Rule 7018(a)(1), (2) and (3), the member “Adds Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non- Penny Pilot Options of 1.15% or more of total industry ADV in the customer clearing range for Equity and ETF option contracts per day in a month on the Nasdaq Options Market”. Under the proposal, the credit will increase to $0.00295 per share executed.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will provide the same credit to all similarly situated members and is available across all Tapes.
Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in a burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
In this instance, the proposed change to the credits provided for all three Tapes to member firms for displayed quotes/orders (other than supplemental orders or designated retail orders) that provide liquidity, does not impose a burden on competition because the Exchange's execution services are voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange venues. In sum, if the change proposed herein is unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rules to (1) prescribe the Securities Traders examination (Series 57) (the “Series 57 Examination”) as the qualifying examination for registered Market Makers, Market Maker Authorized Traders (“MMATs”), and Floor Brokers, (2) eliminate reference to the S501 Program as a continuing education requirement, and (3) rename the category “Proprietary Trader” as “Securities Trader” in Exchange rules without making any substantive change to the definition of such term. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rules 921NY, 921.1NY and 931NY to prescribe the Series 57 Examination as the qualifying examination for registered Market Makers, MMATs, and Floor Brokers.
Exchange Rule 921NY currently specifies that an applicant must pass an examination prescribed by the Exchange in order to register as a Market Maker. Exchange Rule 921.1NY currently specifies that an applicant must pass an examination prescribed by the Exchange in order to register as a MMAT. And Exchange Rule 931NY currently specifies that an applicant must pass an examination prescribed by the Exchange in order to register as a Floor Broker. For purposes of these rules, NYSE Amex Options has currently prescribed the successful completion of the Proprietary Trader Qualification Examination (“Series 56 Examination”) as the qualifying exam for Market Makers, MMATs and Floor Brokers. In addition, individuals currently engaged solely in proprietary trading, who are not registered as Market Makers, MMATs or Floor Brokers, may qualify for registration by successful completion of the Series 56 Examination or the General Securities Representative Qualification Examination (“Series 7 Examination”).
The Exchange proposes to change the prescribed examination for Market Makers, MMATs and Floor Brokers from the Series 56 Examination to the Series 57 Examination. With this proposed rule change, Market Makers, MMATs, Floor Brokers and individuals engaged solely in proprietary trading will qualify for registration by passing the Series 57 Examination.
The Series 57 Examination is being developed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) in consultation with industry and exchange representatives. The Series 57 examination will be based on the current job functions of securities traders and will include elements of the Series 55 Equity Trader Qualification Examination (which is required to engage in over-the-counter securities trading) and the current Series 56 Registered Proprietary Traders Examination (which is required for associated persons engaged in securities trading).
While NYSE Amex Options will no longer be offering the Series 56 Examination as a qualifying exam to new applicants, the Exchange will continue to recognize individuals who have passed that exam as having successfully completed a qualifying exam. Individuals who have taken the Series 56 Examination and have registered in Web CRD
The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rules 341 and 341A. Under the proposed rule change, the Exchange would rename the category “Proprietary Trader” as “Securities Trader” in Rule 341 without making any substantive change to the definition of such term. A Securities Trader, similar to what is currently required for a Proprietary Trader, would be required to register as such on Web CRD and pass the Series 57 Examination described above, but would not be permitted to function in an agency capacity or otherwise conduct a public business in securities. Additionally, Rule 341 requires that an individual associated with an Exchange member with supervisory responsibility over proprietary trading activities qualify and register as a Proprietary Trader Principal. Under the proposed rule change, the Exchange would replace references in Rule 341 to Proprietary Trader Principal with Securities Trader Principal.
Further, registered persons are required under Rule 341A to comply with the Exchange's continuing education requirements. Specifically, under Rule 341A(a)(1), individuals engaged solely in proprietary trading are required to complete the S501 Program to fulfill the Regulatory Element of their continuing education requirement. With the transition to the Series 57 Examination, the S501 Program will no longer be required; such individuals will instead be required to complete the S101 Program to fulfill the Regulatory Element of their continuing education requirement.
The Exchange notes that in order to qualify as a Proprietary Trader Principal, an associated person currently must pass the Series 56 Examination or the Series 7 Examination, and the Series 24 Examination. Once the Exchange has adopted the Series 57 Examination as the qualifying exam for a Securities Trader, associated persons would need to pass the Series 57 Examination and the Series 24 Examination in order to register as a Securities Trader Principal. Only those individuals who are registered as such would be qualified to supervise a Securities Trader. Individuals registered as a General Securities Principal would not be qualified to supervise a Securities Trader, nor would a Securities Trader Principal be able to act as a General Securities Principal, unless the individual is registered as a Securities Trader Principal and a General Securities Principal.
Within 30 days of filing the proposed rule change, the Exchange will issue a Regulatory Bulletin announcing the operative date of the rule change, which will not be sooner than January 4, 2016.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change does not impose any additional examination burdens on persons who are already registered. There is no obligation to take the Series 57 examination in order to continue in their present duties, so the proposed rule change is not expected to disadvantage current registered persons relative to new entrants in this regard.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to extend its program that allows transactions to take place at a price that is below $1 per option contract through January 5, 2017. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
An “accommodation” or “cabinet” trade refers to trades in listed options on the Exchange that are worthless or not actively traded. Cabinet trading is generally conducted in accordance with the Exchange Rules, except as provided in Exchange Rule 6.54,
The Exchange has temporarily amended the procedures through January 5, 2015 [sic] to allow transactions to take place in open outcry at a price of at least $0 but less than $1 per option contract.
The purpose of the instant rule change is to extend the operation of these temporary procedures through January 5, 2017, so that the procedures can continue without interruption while CBOE considers whether to seek permanent approval of the temporary procedures.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that allowing for liquidations at a price less than $1 per option contract better facilitates the closing of options positions that are worthless or not actively trading. Further, the Exchange believes the proposal is consistent with the Act because the proposed extension is of appropriate length to allow the Exchange and the Commission to continue to assess the impact of the Exchange's authority to allow transactions to take place in open outcry at a price of at least $0 but less than $1 per option in accordance with its attendant obligations and conditions, including the process for submitting such transactions to OCC for clearing.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that allowing for liquidations at a price less than $1 per option contract better facilitates the closing of options positions that are worthless or not actively trading. The Exchange believes this promotes fair and orderly markets, as well as assists the Exchange in its ability to effectively attract order flow and liquidity to its market, and ultimately benefit all CBOE Trading Permit Holders (“TPHs”) and all investors.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule change does not make any changes to Exchange rules, but simply extends an existing temporary program. Further, the program is available to all market participants through CBOE TPHs. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, again, the proposed rule change does not make any changes to Exchange rules, but simply extends an existing temporary program. Moreover, to the extent that the program makes CBOE a more attractive marketplace, as noted above, the program is available to all market participants through CBOE TPHs.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated by the Commission,
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 2.23 to (1) prescribe the Securities Traders examination (Series 57) (the “Series 57 Examination”) as the qualifying examination for registered Market Makers, Market Maker Authorized Traders (“MMATs”), Floor Brokers and Securities Traders, (2) eliminate reference to the S501Program as a continuing education requirement, and (3) rename the category “Proprietary Trader” as “Securities Trader” in Exchange rules without making any substantive change to the definition of such term. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 2.23 to prescribe the Series 57 Examination as the qualifying examination for registered Market Makers, MMATs, Floor Brokers and Securities Traders and eliminate reference to the S501 Program as a continuing education requirement.
NYSE Arca Rule 2.23 currently specifies that the successful completion of the Proprietary Trader Qualification Examination (“Series 56 Examination”) is required in order to register as a Market Maker, a MMAT, or a Floor Broker.
The Exchange proposes to change the prescribed examination for Market Makers, MMATs, and Floor Brokers from the Series 56 Examination to the Series 57 Examination and also proposes to replace the Series 56 Examination with the Series 57 Examination for individuals engaged solely in proprietary trading. With this proposed rule change, Market Makers, MMATs, Floor Brokers and individuals engaged solely in proprietary trading will qualify for registration by passing the Series 57 Examination.
The Series 57 Examination is being developed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) in consultation with industry and exchange representatives. The Series 57 Examination will be based on the current job functions of securities traders and will include elements of the Series 55 Equity Trader Qualification Examination (which is required to engage in over-the-counter securities trading) and the current Series 56 Registered Proprietary Traders Examination (which is required for associated persons engaged in proprietary trading).
While NYSE Arca will no longer be offering the Series 56 Examination as a qualifying exam to new applicants, the Exchange will continue to recognize individuals who have passed that exam as having successfully completed a qualifying exam. Individuals who have taken the Series 56 Examination and have registered in Web CRD
Under the proposed rule change, the Exchange would rename the category “Proprietary Trader” as “Securities Trader” in Rule 2.23 without making any substantive change to the definition of such term. A Securities Trader, similar to what is currently required for a Proprietary Trader, would be required to register as such on Web CRD and pass the Series 57 Examination described above, but would not be permitted to function in an agency capacity or otherwise conduct a public business in securities. Additionally, Rule 2.23 requires that an individual associated with an Exchange member with supervisory responsibility over proprietary trading activities qualify and register as a Proprietary Trader Principal. Under the proposed rule change, the Exchange would replace references in Rule 2.23 to Proprietary Trader Principal with Securities Trader Principal.
Further, registered persons are required under Rule 2.23(d) to comply with the Exchange's continuing education requirements. Specifically, under Rule 2.23(d)(1)(A), individuals engaged solely in proprietary trading are required to complete the S501 Program to fulfill the Regulatory Element of their continuing education requirement. With the transition to the Series 57 Examination, the S501 Program will no longer be required; such individuals will instead be required to complete the S101 Program to fulfill the Regulatory Element of their continuing education requirement.
The Exchange notes that in order to qualify as a Proprietary Trader Principal, an associated person currently must pass the Series 56 Examination or the Series 7 Examination, and the Series 24 Examination. Once the Exchange has adopted the Series 57 Examination as the qualifying exam for a Securities Trader, associated persons would need to pass the Series 57 Examination and the Series 24 Examination in order to register as a Securities Trader Principal. Only those individuals who are registered as such would be qualified to supervise a Securities Trader. Individuals registered as a General Securities Principal would not be qualified to supervise a Securities Trader. Thus, a General Securities Principal may not supervise a Securities Trader, nor would a Securities Trader Principal be able to act as a General Securities Principal, unless the individual is registered as a Securities Trader Principal and a General Securities Principal.
Within 30 days of filing the proposed rule change, the Exchange will issue a Regulatory Bulletin announcing the operative date of the rule change, which will not be sooner than January 4, 2016.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change does not impose any additional examination burdens on persons who are already registered. There is no obligation to take the Series 57 Examination in order to continue in their present duties, so the proposed rule change is not expected to
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange rules to prescribe the Securities Traders examination (Series 57) (the “Series 57 Examination”) as the qualifying examination for persons associated with a member organization (“Member”) engaged solely in proprietary trading, and amend Exchange rules regarding continuing education requirement applicable to such Members. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text
Rule 345 currently states that no Member shall permit any natural person to perform the duties customarily performed by a securities lending representative or a direct supervisor of such, unless such person is registered with, qualified by and is acceptable to the Exchange. The rule further states that Members shall comply with NASD Rule 1031 concerning the registration and approval of registered representatives and their supervisors. Under the current rule, each associated person of a Member who is included within the definition of “representative” in NASD Rule 1031 is required to appropriately register with the Exchange if such person is engaged in proprietary trading or directly supervises such activity. In order to engage in proprietary trading on the Exchange, an associated person must be registered as a General Securities Representative (Series 7) as the NYSE does not recognize the Series 56 Examination as an acceptable qualification standard for associated persons engaged in equities proprietary trading.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 345 to recognize a new category of limited representative registration for a Securities Trader and allow such individual to register in Web CRD
The Series 57 Examination is being developed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) in consultation with industry and exchange representatives. The Series 57 Examination will be based on industry rules applicable to trading of equity securities and listed options contracts. The Series 57 examination will cover, among other things, recordkeeping and recording requirements; types and characteristics of securities and investments; trading practices; and display, execution, and trading systems.
Individuals currently engaged solely in proprietary trading, who currently qualify for registration by passing the Series 7 Examination and have registered in Web CRD as Proprietary Traders will have their registration converted in Web CRD on January 4, 2016 to a Securities Trader without having to take any additional examinations and without having to take any other actions. However, the registration of individuals who have taken the Series 7 Examination will not be converted to a Securities Trader if they have not registered as a Proprietary Trader in Web CRD by December 28, 2015. After that date, these individuals would be required to take the Series 57 Examination in order to register as Securities Traders as the Series 7 Examination would no longer serve as a qualifying exam to engage solely in proprietary trading on the Exchange. In addition, individuals registered as Proprietary Traders in Web CRD prior to the effective date of the proposed rule change will be eligible to register as Securities Traders without having to take any additional examinations, provided that no more than two years have passed between the date the individual last registered as a Proprietary Trader and the date the individual registers as a Securities Trader.
In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 345 to create a new category of limited representative Principal—the Securities Trader Principal. Registration as a Securities Trader Principal would be restricted to individuals whose supervisory responsibilities are limited to Securities Traders, as defined in amended Supplementary Material .10 to Rule 345. As proposed, a supervisor of a Securities Trader must satisfy its registration requirements under Supplementary Material .10 by registering and qualifying as a Securities Trader Principal in Web CRD if (a) such supervisor's supervisory responsibilities are limited solely to supervising Securities Traders; (b) such supervisor is qualified to be so registered by passing the General Securities Principal Qualification Examination—Series 24; and (c) such supervisor is registered pursuant to Exchange Rules as a Securities Trader. Under the proposed rule change, a Securities Trader Principal would not be qualified to function in a Principal or supervisory capacity with responsibility over any area of business other than that involving proprietary trading.
The Exchange notes that in order to currently qualify as a Proprietary Trader Principal, an associated person must pass the Series 7 Examination and the Series 24 Examination. Once the Series 57 Examination becomes the qualifying exam for a Securities Trader, associated persons would need to pass the Series 57 Examination and the Series 24 Examination in order to register as a Securities Trader Principal. Only those individuals who are registered as such would be qualified to supervise a Securities Trader. Individuals registered as a General Securities Principal would not be qualified to supervise a Securities Trader, nor would a Securities Trader Principal be able to act as a General Securities Principal, unless the individual is appropriately registered as a Securities Trader Principal and a General Securities Principal.
Further, registered persons are required under Rule 345A to comply with the Exchange's continuing education requirements. Specifically, under Rule 345A(a)(1), no Member may permit any registered person to continue to, and no registered person may continue to, perform duties as a registered person, unless such person has complied with the Exchange's continuing education requirements. The Exchange proposes to amend the rule to specifically require each registered person who is qualified solely as a Securities Trader to comply with the continuing education requirements appropriate for the Series 57.
Within 30 days of filing the proposed rule change, the Exchange will issue a Regulatory Bulletin announcing the operative date of the rule change, which will not be sooner than January 4, 2016.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change does not impose any additional examination burdens on persons who are already registered. There is no obligation to take the Series 57 examination in order to continue in their present duties, so the proposed rule change is not expected to disadvantage current registered persons relative to new entrants in this regard.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange rules to prescribe the Securities Traders examination (Series 57) (the “Series 57 Examination”) as the qualifying examination for employees of ETP Holders
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
Rule 2.21 currently requires each employee of an ETP Holder compensated directly or indirectly for the solicitation or handling of business in securities, including trading in securities for the account of the ETP Holder to be appropriately registered in Web CRD. The rule further states that in order to satisfy the registration requirement, among other things, a Member must satisfy applicable examination requirements as prescribed by the Exchange. In order to engage in proprietary trading on the Exchange, or directly supervise such activity, employees of ETP Holders must be registered as a General Securities Representative (Series 7) as NYSE Arca does not recognize the Series 56 Examination as an acceptable qualification standard for employees of ETP Holders engaged in equities proprietary trading.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 2.21 to recognize a new category of limited representative registration for a Securities Trader and allow such individual to register in Web CRD
The Series 57 Examination is being developed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) in consultation with industry and exchange representatives. The Series 57 Examination will be based on industry rules applicable to trading of equity securities and listed options contracts. The Series 57 examination will cover, among other things, recordkeeping and recording requirements; types and characteristics of securities and investments; trading practices; and display, execution, and trading systems.
Individuals currently engaged solely in proprietary trading, who currently qualify for registration by passing the Series 7 Examination and have registered in Web CRD as Proprietary Traders will have their registration converted in Web CRD on January 4, 2016 to a Securities Trader without having to take any additional examinations and without having to take any other actions. However, the registration of individuals who have taken the Series 7 Examination will not be converted to a Securities Trader if they have not registered as a Proprietary Trader in Web CRD by December 28, 2015. After that date, these individuals
In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 2.21 to create a new category of limited representative Principal—the Securities Trader Principal. Registration as a Securities Trader Principal would be restricted to individuals whose supervisory responsibilities are limited to Securities Traders, as defined in amended Commentary .03 to Rule 2.21. As proposed, a supervisor of a Securities Trader must satisfy its registration requirements under Commentary .03 to Rule 2.21 by registering and qualifying as a Securities Trader Principal in Web CRD if (a) such supervisor's supervisory responsibilities are limited solely to supervising Securities Traders; (b) such supervisor is qualified to be so registered by passing the General Securities Principal Qualification Examination—Series 24; and (c) such supervisor is registered pursuant to Exchange Rules as a Securities Trader. Under the proposed rule change, a Securities Trader Principal would not be qualified to function in a Principal or supervisory capacity with responsibility over any area of business other than that involving proprietary trading.
The Exchange notes that in order to currently qualify as a Proprietary Trader Principal, an individual must pass the Series 7 Examination and the Series 24 Examination. Once the Series 57 Examination becomes the qualifying exam for a Securities Trader, such individuals would need to pass the Series 57 Examination and the Series 24 Examination in order to register as a Securities Trader Principal. Only those individuals who are registered as such would be qualified to supervise a Securities Trader. Individuals registered as a General Securities Principal would not be qualified to supervise a Securities Trader, nor would a Securities Trader Principal be able to act as a General Securities Principal, unless the individual is appropriately registered as a Securities Trader Principal and a General Securities Principal.
Further, registered persons are required under Rule 2.21(d) to comply with the Exchange's continuing education requirements. Specifically, under Rule 2.21(d), no Member may permit any registered person to continue to, and no registered person may continue to, perform duties as a registered person, unless such person has complied with the Exchange's continuing education requirements. The Exchange proposes to amend the rule to specifically require each registered person who is qualified solely as a Securities Trader to comply with the continuing education requirements appropriate for the Series 57.
Within 30 days of filing the proposed rule change, the Exchange will issue a Regulatory Bulletin announcing the operative date of the rule change, which will not be sooner than January 4, 2016.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change does not impose any additional examination burdens on persons who are already registered. There is no obligation to take the Series 57 examination in order to continue in their present duties, so the proposed rule change is not expected to disadvantage current registered persons relative to new entrants in this regard.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule.
The Exchange also proposes to amend the Fees Schedule with respect to the Qualified Contingent Cross (“QCC”) Orders Rate Table. By way of background, the Fees Schedule currently provides for a “QCC Rate Table” which sets forth a transaction fee and credit for QCC transactions. In addition, the “Notes” section of the QCC Rate Table includes the definition of a QCC transaction. Specifically the “Notes” section currently provides that “A QCC transaction is comprised of an `initiating order' to buy (sell) at least 1,000 contracts, coupled with a contra-side order to sell (buy) an equal number of contracts . . .” The Exchange notes that it recently amended its QCC rules to expand the availability of QCC orders
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the SPXW and VIX Customer Priority Surcharge increases are reasonable because the amount of the new fees are within the range of surcharges assessed for customer transactions in other CBOE proprietary products (for example customers are currently assessed a $0.20 Hybrid 3.0 Execution Surcharge (which essentially acts as a customer priority surcharge) in SPX options).
The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess the SPXW and VIX Priority Surcharges to Customers and not other market participants because Customers are not subject to additional costs for effecting transactions in SPXW and VIX which are applicable to other market participants, such as license surcharges. Additionally, Customers are not subject to fees applicable to other market participants such as connectivity fees and fees relating to Trading Permits, and are not subject to the same obligations as other market participants, including regulatory and compliance requirements and quoting obligations.
The Exchange notes that the VIX Surcharge was adopted to minimize the cost differentials between manual and electronic executions (as Floor Brokers assess a commission on customer executions). As such, the Exchange believes it's equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess the VIX Surcharge to Makers and not Takers because electronic Maker orders are analogous to customer orders represented by Floor Brokers in open outcry (as compared to Takers that immediately remove liquidity and do not rest in the book). The Exchange believes it's equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess only Makers in VIX and both Makers and Takers in SPXW because the SPX product group has reached a mature and established level since its introduction while VIX has not and the Exchange therefore wants to incentivize liquidity in VIX and not discourage trading. The Exchange also notes that another S&P 500 product (SPX) also charges a surcharge to both Makers and Takers (
The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to only assess the VIX Surcharge when the contract premium is at least $0.11 because the Exchange wants to reduce costs on low priced VIX options to encourage Customers to close and roll over positions close to expiration at low premium levels. Currently, such Customers are less likely to do this because the transaction fee is closer to the premium level. The Exchange believes that maintaining lowered fees overall for VIX options trading with a premium of $0.00-$0.10 will encourage the trading of such options. As such, the Exchange does not wish to assess the VIX Surcharge on such options in order to keep the costs low.
Finally, the Exchange believes that codifying the amended definition of a QCC transaction in the Fees Schedule (in addition to the Exchange's Rules, where it is currently provided for), will alleviate potential confusion and maintain clarity in the Fees Schedule, which serves to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, while different electronic transaction fees are assessed to different market participants, different market participants have different obligations and circumstances as noted above. The Exchange believes that the proposal to increase the surcharge amount assessed to Customers for executions in SPXW and VIX contracts will not cause an unnecessary burden on intermarket competition because SPXW and VIX are only traded on CBOE. To the extent that the proposed changes make CBOE a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become CBOE market participants.
Additionally, the proposed change to codify in the Fees Schedule the revised definition of a QCC order is not intended for competitive reasons and only applies to CBOE. The Exchange notes that no rights or obligations of Trading Permit Holders are affected by this particular change.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal for the EDGX Options Market (“EDGX Options”) to adopt a principles-based approach to prohibit the misuse of material nonpublic information by Market Makers by deleting Rule 22.10 (Limitations on Dealings). The Exchange has designated this proposal as non-controversial and provided the Commission with the notice required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt a principles-based approach to prohibit the misuse of material non-public information by Market Makers by deleting Rule 22.10 (Limitations on Dealings). In doing so, the Exchange, with regard to EDGX Options, would harmonize its rules governing Market Makers and Options Members that are not Market Makers relating to the protection against misuse of material, non-public information. The Exchange believes that Rule 22.10 is no longer necessary because all Options Members, including Market Makers, are subject to the Exchange's generally applicable principles-based requirements governing the protection against the misuse of material, non-public information, pursuant to Rule 5.5 (Prevention of the Misuse of Material, Non-Public Information), which obviates the need for separately prescribed requirements for a subset of Exchange participants. Additionally, there is no separate regulatory purpose served by having separate rules for Market Makers. The Exchange notes that this proposed rule change will not decrease the protections against the misuse of material, non-public information; instead, it is designed to provide more flexibility to Options Members. This is a competitive filing that is based on a proposal recently submitted by NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT”) and approved by the Commission.
The Exchange has two classes of EDGX Options participants.
Rule 22.5 (Obligations of Market Makers) describes the obligations of Market Makers. Rule 22.6 (Market Maker Quotations) sets forth quoting obligations of Market Makers.
The Exchange believes that the particularized guidelines for Market Makers in Rule 22.10 are no longer necessary and proposes to delete Rule 22.10. The Exchange believes that Rule 5.5 (Prevention of the Misuse of Material, Nonpublic Information), which governs the misuse of material, non-public information and applies to all Members (including Options Members), provides an appropriate, principles-based approach to prevent the market abuses that Rule 22.10 seeks to address. Specifically, Rule 5.5 requires every Member (including Options Members) to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of material, non-public information by such Member or persons associated with such Member. For purposes of Rule 5.5, the misuse of material, non-public information includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Trading in any securities issued by a corporation, or in any related securities or related options or other derivative securities, while in possession of material, non-public information concerning that issuer;
(2) Trading in a security or related options or other derivative securities, while in possession of material, non-public information concerning imminent transactions in the security or related securities; and
(3) Disclosing to another person or entity any material nonpublic information involving a corporation whose shares are publicly traded or an imminent transaction in an underlying security or related securities for the purpose of facilitating the possible misuse of such material nonpublic information.
Because Options Members are already subject to the requirements of Rule 5.5, the Exchange does not believe that it is necessary to separately require particularized limitations on Market Makers. Deleting Rule 22.10, with its particularized limitations would provide Market Makers with the flexibility to adapt their policies and procedures as appropriate to reflect changes to their business model, business activities, or the securities market in a manner similar to how Options Members on the Exchange currently operate in conformity with Rule 5.5.
As noted above, Market Makers are distinguished under Exchange rules from other Options Members only to the extent that Market Makers have heightened quoting obligations. However, such heightened quoting obligations do not afford different or greater access to nonpublic information than any other Options Member of the Exchange.
The Exchange notes that its proposed approach to use a principles-based approach to protecting against the misuse of material non-public information for all of its registered Options Members is consistent with recently approved rule changes for NYSE MKT and recently filed changes for the options platform of BATS Exchange, Inc. (“BATS Options”), the International Securities Exchange LLC (“ISE”), and the Boston Options Exchange LLC (“BOX”).
The Exchange believes that a principles-based rule applicable to members of options markets would be effective in protecting against the misuse of material non-public information. Indeed, Exchange Rule 5.5 is currently applicable to Options Members and already requires policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of material nonpublic information. The Exchange believes that Rule 5.5 provides appropriate protection against the misuse of material nonpublic information by Options Members and that there is no longer a need for prescriptive information barrier requirements set forth in Rule 22.10.
The Exchange notes that even with this proposed rule change and the elimination of the requirement that the Exchange pre-approve a Member's policies and procedures, pursuant to Rule 5.5, an Options Member would still be obligated to ensure that its policies and procedures reflect the current state of its business and continue to be reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable federal securities law and regulations, including Section 15(g) of the Act,
The Exchange is not proposing to change what is considered to be material, non-public information and, thus, would not expect there to be any changes to the types of information that an affiliated brokerage business of a Market Maker could share with such Market Maker. In addition, the Exchange notes that the proposed rule change would not permit the affiliates of a Market Maker to have access to any non-public order or quote information of the Market Maker, including information regarding the non-displayed size of reserve orders.
While information barriers would not specifically be required under the proposal, Rule 5.5 already requires that an Options Member consider its business model or business activities in structuring its policies and procedures, which may dictate that an information barrier or a functional separation be part of the appropriate set of policies and procedures that would be reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities law and regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules.
The Exchange believes that the proposed reliance on the principles-based Rule 5.5 would ensure that an Options Member would be required to protect against the misuse of any material non-public information. As noted above, Rule 5.5 already requires that Members refrain from trading while in possession of material non-public information concerning imminent transactions in the security or related product. The Exchange believes that moving to a principles-based approach rather than prescribing particularized information barriers applicable to Market Makers would provide Market Makers with flexibility when managing risk across a firm, including integrating options positions with other positions of the firm or, as applicable, by the respective independent trading unit.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by adopting a principles-based approach to permit an Options Member to maintain and enforce policies and procedures to, among other things, prohibit the misuse of material non-public information and provide flexibility on how a Market Maker structures its operations. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is based upon an approved rule of the Exchange to which Options Members are subject—Rule 5.5—and the proposed change harmonizes the rules governing Options Members. Moreover, Market Makers would continue to be subject to federal and Exchange requirements for protecting material non-public order information.
The Exchange further believes the proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to promote just and equitable principles of trade because existing rules make clear to Options Members the type of conduct that is prohibited by the Exchange. While the proposal eliminates certain prescriptive requirements relating to the misuse of material non-public information, Market Makers would remain subject to existing Exchange rules requiring them to establish and maintain systems to supervise their activities, and to create, implement, and maintain written procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with applicable securities laws and Exchange rules, including the prohibition on the misuse of material, nonpublic information. Additionally, the policies and procedures of Market Makers, including those relating to information barriers, would be subject to review by FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange.
The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change would still require that Market Makers maintain and enforce policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with applicable federal securities laws and regulations and with Exchange rules. Even though there would no longer be particularized Market Maker information barriers, any Market Maker written policies and procedures would continue to be subject to oversight by the Exchange and therefore the elimination of prescribed requirements should not reduce the effectiveness of the Exchange rules to protect against the misuse of material non-public information. Rather, all Options Members will be able to utilize a flexible, principles-based approach to modify their policies and procedures as appropriate to reflect changes to their business model, business activities, or to the securities market itself. Moreover, while particularized information barriers may no longer be required, an
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard and as indicated above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a competitive response to a filing submitted by NYSE MKT that was recently approved by the Commission.
The Exchange believes that the proposal will enhance competition by allowing Market Makers to comply with applicable Exchange rules in a manner best suited to their business models, business activities, and the securities markets, thus reducing regulatory burdens while still ensuring compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations and Exchange rules. The Exchange believes that the proposal will foster a fair and orderly marketplace without being overly burdensome upon Market Makers.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by its terms, 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) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (1) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection of investors; or (3) 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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2015-59. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Department of State will conduct an open meeting at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, 6 January 2016, in Conference Room 4 of the Department of Transportation Headquarters Conference Center, West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 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 Ship Design and Construction to be held at the IMO headquarters, London, United Kingdom, January 18-22, 2016.
The agenda items to be considered include:
Members of the public may attend this meeting up to the seating capacity of the room. To facilitate the building security process, and to request reasonable accommodation, those who plan to attend should contact the meeting coordinator, LT Joshua Kapusta, by email at
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
In accordance with relevant provisions of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is providing notice of its determination of the trade surplus in certain sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products of Chile, Morocco, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Peru, Colombia, and Panama. As described below, the level of a country's trade surplus in these goods relates to the quantity of sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products for which the United States grants preferential tariff treatment under (i) the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement (Chile FTA); (ii) the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement (Morocco FTA); (iii) the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR); (iv) the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (Peru TPA); (v) the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (Colombia TPA), and (vi) the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement (Panama TPA).
Inquiries may be mailed or delivered to Ronald Baumgarten, Director of Agricultural Affairs, Office of Agricultural Affairs, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20508.
Ronald Baumgarten, Office of Agricultural Affairs, telephone: (202) 395-9582 or facsimile: (202) 395-4579.
Note 12(a) to subchapter XI of HTS chapter 99 provides that USTR is required to publish annually in the
Note 12(b) to subchapter XI of HTS chapter 99 provides duty-free treatment for certain sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products of Chile entered under subheading 9911.17.05 in any calendar year (beginning in calendar year 2015) shall be the quantity of goods equal to the amount of Chile's trade surplus in subdivision (a) of the note.
During calendar year (CY) 2014, the most recent year for which data is available,
Note 12(a) to subchapter XII of HTS chapter 99 provides that USTR is required to publish annually in the
Note 12(b) to subchapter XII of HTS chapter 99 provides duty-free treatment for certain sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products of Morocco entered under subheading 9912.17.05 in an amount equal to the lesser of Morocco's trade surplus or the specific quantity set out in that note for that calendar year.
Note 12(c) to subchapter XII of HTS chapter 99 provides preferential tariff treatment for certain sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products of Morocco entered under subheading 9912.17.10 through 9912.17.85 in an amount equal to the amount by which Morocco's trade surplus exceeds the specific quantity set out in that note for that calendar year.
During CY 2014, the most recent year for which data is available,
Note 25(b)(i) to subchapter XXII of HTS chapter 98 provides that USTR is required to publish annually in the
U.S. Note 25(b)(ii) to subchapter XXII of HTS chapter 98 provides duty-free treatment for certain sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products of each CAFTA-DR country entered under subheading 9822.05.20 in an amount equal to the lesser of that country's trade surplus or the specific quantity set out in that note for that country and that calendar year.
During CY 2014, the most recent year for which data is available,
During CY 2014, the most recent year for which data is available, the
During CY 2014, the most recent year for which data is available,
During CY 2014, the most recent year for which data is available,
During CY 2014, the most recent year for which data is available,
During CY 2014, the most recent year for which data is available,
Note 28(c) to subchapter XXII of HTS chapter 98 provides that USTR is required to publish annually in the
Note 28(d) to subchapter XXII of HTS chapter 98 provides duty-free treatment for certain sugar goods of Peru entered under subheading 9822.06.10 in an amount equal to the lesser of Peru's trade surplus or the specific quantity set out in that note for that calendar year.
During CY 2014, the most recent year for which data is available,
Note 32(b) to subchapter XXII of HTS chapter 98 provides that USTR is required to publish annually in the
Note 32(c)(i) to subchapter XXII of HTS chapter 98 provides duty-free treatment for certain sugar goods of Colombia entered under subheading 9822.08.01 in an amount equal to the lesser of Colombia's trade surplus or the specific quantity set out in that note for that calendar year.
During CY 2014, the most recent year for which data is available,
Note 35(a) to subchapter XXII of HTS chapter 98 provides that USTR is required to publish annually in the
Note 35(c) to subchapter XXII of HTS chapter 98 provides duty-free treatment for certain sugar goods of Panama entered under subheading 9822.09.17 in an amount equal to the lesser of Panama's trade surplus or the specific quantity set out in that note for that calendar year.
During CY 2014, the most recent year for which data is available,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA confirms its decision to exempt 44 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were effective on September 12, 2015. The exemptions expire on September 12, 2017.
Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On August 12, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal diabetes exemption applications from 44 individuals and requested comments from the public (80 FR 48396). The public comment period closed on September 11, 2015, and 3 comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 44 applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The diabetes rule provides that “A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control” (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
These 44 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 41 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the August 12, 2015,
FMCSA received 3 comments in this proceeding. Jamie Savarese and Louis Savarese believe that Jackson A. Savarese should be granted an exemption. While Donald R. Meckley, Jr. stated that his name was spelled incorrectly in the request for comments. The spelling has been corrected in this notice.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the applicants in the exemption document and they include the following: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual
Based upon its evaluation of the 44 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above 949 CFR 391.64(b)):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice announces final environmental actions taken by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for a project in Bellevue, WA. The purpose of this notice is to announce publicly the environmental decisions by FTA on the subject project and to activate the limitation on any claims that may challenge these final environmental actions.
By this notice, FTA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to Section 139(l) of Title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.). A claim seeking judicial review of FTA actions announced herein for the listed public transportation project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before May 9, 2016.
Nancy-Ellen Zusman, Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, (312) 353-2577 or Terence Plaskon, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Environmental Programs, (202) 366-0442. FTA is located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Notice is hereby given that FTA has taken final agency actions by issuing certain approvals for the public transportation project listed below. The actions on the project, as well as the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the documentation issued in connection with the project to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in other documents in the FTA administrative record for the project. Interested parties may contact either the project sponsor or the relevant FTA Regional Office for more information. Contact information for FTA's Regional Offices may be found at
This notice applies to all FTA decisions on the listed project as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including, but not limited to, NEPA [42 U.S.C. 4321-4375], Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303], Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 470f], and the Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q]. This notice does not, however, alter or extend the limitation period for challenges of project decisions subject to previous notices published in the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition.
Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC (BATO), has determined that certain Bridgestone bus tires do not fully comply with paragraph S6.5(e) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119,
For further information on this decision contact Abraham Diaz, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5310, facsimile (202) 366-5930.
I.
Notice of receipt of the BATO's petition was published, with a 30-day public comment period, on October 2, 2015 in the
II.
III.
IV.
S6.5
(e) The speed restriction of the tire, if 90 km/h (55 mph) or less, shown as follows:
V.
BATO also believes that most professional drivers would understand the speed restriction as stated in metric units. Since the subject tires cannot be used in a passenger vehicle application, and will be serviced and driven by professionals who understand the difference between English and metric units; it is unlikely an unqualified driver would mistakenly drive these tires faster than the speed restriction.
BATO notes that they have not received any complaints, claims, or warranty adjustments related to the subject tires and that these tires, meet all other performance requirements of FMVSS No. 119.
BATO has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the noncompliance so that all future production of the subject tires complies with FMVSS No. 119.
In summation, BATO believes that the described noncompliance of the subject tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to exempt BATO from providing recall notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
The subject speed-restricted tires are correctly stamped with the speed restriction in km/h. As BATO explained in its petition, omitting the English unit does not cause a safety concern in this case since the vehicles on which the subject tires are mounted are serviced and driven by professionals in U.S. territory of Guam (Guam) who understand the difference between English (mph) and Metric (kmh) speed units.
Furthermore, NHTSA has confirmed that Guam has no interstate highways and has maximum speed restriction of 35 mph on its road network which is significantly less than the 55 mph speed restriction intended for the subject tires.
For the above reasons, it is very unlikely that the subject vehicles will be driven faster than 55 mph for any sustained periods of time in Guam.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision only applies to the subject tires that BATO no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the granting of this petition does not relieve equipment distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after BATO notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR), pursuant to two amendments to an existing trackage rights agreement (the Base Agreement), has agreed to grant Reading Blue Mountain & Northern Railroad Company (RBMN) additional trackage rights over approximately 6.1 miles of rail line (the Line), between milepost JW 147.4 at Oneida Jct., Pa., and milepost JW 141.3 ± at Ashmore, Jct., Pa.
RBMN may consummate the transaction on or after December 25, 2015, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice of exemption was filed).
As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in
This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed by December 18, 2015 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35980, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Eric M. Hocky, Clark Hill, PLC, One Commerce Square, 2005 Market St., Suite 1000, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before February 9, 2016.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632-8924 or FAX (202) 632-8925.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-21), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before February 9, 2016.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Brian McCarthy at (202) 461-6345.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
1. Learners' Perceptions Survey PR, VA Form 10-0439.
2. Learners' Perceptions Survey AH, VA Form 10-0439.
Under the authority of Federal Law 38 U.S.C. Part V, Chapter 73, Section 7302, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides education and training to over 120,000 national cohort of health care trainees per year to assist in providing an adequate supply of health personnel for VA and the Nation. VA is further required to evaluate this program on a continuing basis and determine its effectiveness in achieving its goals (Federal Law, 38 U.S.C. Part I, Chapter 5, Section 527). In addition, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, requires Federal agencies to set goals, measure performance, and report on the accomplishments.
a. Learners' Perceptions Survey PR, VA Form 10-0439—3,750 hours.
b. Learners' Perceptions Survey AH, VA Form 10-0439—3,750 hours.
a. Learners' Perceptions Survey PR, VA Form 10-0439—15 minutes.
b. Learners' Perceptions Survey AH, VA Form 10-0439—15 minutes.
a. Learners' Perceptions Survey PR, VA Form 10-0439—15,000.
b. Learners' Perceptions Survey AH, VA Form 10-0439—15,000.
By direction of the Secretary.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice; correction.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published a collection of information notice in a
Brian McCarthy at (202) 461-6345.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and includes the actual data collection instrument.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before January 11, 2016.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7492 or email
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
1. Foreign Medical Program (FMP) Registration Form.
2. Claim Cover Sheet—Foreign Medical Program (FMP).
VA Form 10-7959f-1, Foreign Medical Program (FMP) Registration Form, is used to register into the Foreign Medical Program those Veterans with service-connected disabilities that are living or traveling overseas. Title 38 CFR 17.125(d) states that requests for consideration of claim reimbursement from approved health care providers and Veterans are to be mailed to VHA Health Administration Center (HAC). The VA Form 10-7959f-2, Claim Cover Sheet—Foreign Medical Program streamlines the claims submission process for claimants or physicians while also reducing the time spent by VA on processing FMP claims. The cover sheet will allow foreign providers/Veterans with a better understanding of basic information required for the processing and payment of claims.
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
a. Foreign Medical Program (FMP) Registration Form—fill, VA Form 10-7959f-1—111 hours.
b. Claim Cover Sheet—Foreign Medical Program (FMP)—fill, VA Form 10-7959f-2—3,652 hours.
a. Foreign Medical Program (FMP) Registration Form—fill, VA Form 10-7959f-1—4 minutes.
b. Claim Cover Sheet—Foreign Medical Program (FMP)—fill, VA Form 10-7959f-2—11 minutes.
a. Foreign Medical Program (FMP) Registration Form—fill, VA Form 10-7959f-1—Annually.
b. Claim Cover Sheet—Foreign Medical Program (FMP)—fill, VA Form 10-7959f-2—12 times a year.
a. Foreign Medical Program (FMP) Registration Form—fill, VA Form 10-7959f-1—1,660.
b. Claim Cover Sheet—Foreign Medical Program (FMP)—fill, VA Form 10-7959f-2—19,920.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before February 9, 2016.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632-8924 or FAX (202) 632-8925.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-21), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c) (2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed
By direction of the Secretary.
Notice.
The Commission on Care submitted to the President, through the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, its interim report as required under Section 202 of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014. This Notice announces the public release of the report, entitled “Commission on Care Interim Report”, on the Commission on Care Web site.
The complete copy of the “Commission on Care Interim Report” is available on the following Web site:
The purpose of the Commission on Care, as described in section 202 of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, is to examine the access of veterans to health care from the Department of Veterans Affairs and strategically examine how best to organize the Veterans Health Administration, locate health care resources, and deliver health care to veterans during the next 20 years.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; supplemental.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter Service or we) is proposing to establish the 2016-17 hunting regulations for certain migratory game birds. We annually prescribe frameworks, or outer limits, for dates and times when hunting may occur and the number of birds that may be taken and possessed in hunting seasons. These frameworks are necessary to allow State selections of seasons and limits and to allow recreational harvest at levels compatible with population and habitat conditions.
You must submit comments on the proposed migratory bird hunting frameworks by January 11, 2016.
•
•
We will post all comments on
Ron W. Kokel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, MS: MB, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; (703) 358-1967.
As part of DOI's retrospective regulatory review, we developed a schedule for migratory game bird hunting regulations that is more efficient and will provide dates much earlier than was possible under the old process. This will facilitate planning for the States and all parties interested in migratory bird hunting. Beginning with the 2016-17 hunting season, we are using a new schedule for establishing our annual migratory game bird hunting regulations. We will combine the current early- and late-season regulatory actions into a single process, based on predictions derived from long-term biological information and harvest strategies, to establish migratory bird hunting seasons much earlier than the system we have used for many years. Under the new process, we will develop proposed hunting season frameworks for a given year in the fall of the prior year. We will finalize those frameworks a few months later, thereby enabling the State agencies to select and publish their season dates in early summer.
On August 6, 2015, we published in the
Subsequent documents will refer only to numbered items requiring attention. Therefore, it is important to note that we will omit those items requiring no attention, and remaining numbered items will be discontinuous and appear incomplete.
The August 6 proposed rule also provided detailed information on the proposed 2016-17 regulatory schedule and announced the Service Regulations Committee (SRC) and Flyway Council meetings.
On October 20-21, 2015, we held open meetings with the Flyway Council Consultants, at which the participants reviewed information on the current status of migratory game birds and developed recommendations for the 2016-17 regulations for these species.
This document deals specifically with proposed frameworks for the migratory bird hunting regulations. It will lead to final frameworks from which States may select season dates, shooting hours, areas, and limits.
We have considered all pertinent comments received through October 23, 2015, on the August 6, 2015, proposed rulemaking document in developing this document. In addition, new proposals for certain regulations are provided for public comment. The comment period is specified above under
The following paragraphs provide information on the status and harvest of migratory game birds excerpted from various reports. Due to the overlapping nature this first year of the new regulatory process for establishing the annual migratory game bird hunting regulations, most all of this information was previously reported in the July 21, 2015, and August 25, 2015, proposed rules for the 2015-16 migratory game bird hunting seasons (80 FR 43266 and 80 FR 51658). However, as an aid to the reader, we are providing it again here. We are also providing updated status information for the Mid-Continent
For more detailed information on methodologies and results, you may obtain complete copies of the various reports at the address indicated under
Federal, provincial, and State agencies conduct surveys each spring to estimate the size of breeding populations and to evaluate habitat conditions. These surveys are conducted using fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and ground crews and encompass principal breeding areas of North America, covering an area over 2.0 million square miles. The traditional survey area comprises Alaska, western Canada, and the north central United States, and includes approximately 1.3 million square miles. The eastern survey area includes parts of Ontario, Quebec, Labrador, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, New York, and Maine, an area of approximately 0.7 million square miles.
Despite an early spring over most of the survey area, habitat conditions during the 2015 Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey (WBPHS) were similar to or poorer than last year. With the exception of portions of southern Saskatchewan and central latitudes of eastern Canada, in many areas the decline in habitat conditions was due to average to below-average annual precipitation. The total pond estimate (Prairie Canada and United States combined) was 6.3 ± 0.2 million, which was 12 percent below the 2014 estimate of 7.2 ± 0.2 million but 21 percent above the long-term average of 5.2 ± 0.03 million. The 2015 estimate of ponds in Prairie Canada was 4.2 ± 0.1 million. This estimate was 10 percent below the 2014 estimate of 4.6 ± 0.2 million but 19 percent above the long-term average (3.5 ± 0.02 million). The 2015 pond estimate for the north central United States was 2.2 ± 0.09 million, which was 16 percent below the 2014 estimate of 2.6 ± 0.1 million and 28 percent above the long-term average (1.7 ± 0.02 million).
Additional details of the 2015 Survey were provided in the July 21, 2015,
In the traditional survey area, which includes strata 1-18, 20-50, and 75-77, the total duck population estimate (excluding scoters [
(
The eastern survey area was restratified in 2005, and is now composed of strata 51-72. In the eastern survey area, estimated abundance of American black ducks (
We provide information on the population status and productivity of North American Canada geese (
In 2015, conditions in the Arctic and boreal areas important for geese were variable. Compared to last year, snow and ice conditions were less extensive in the western Arctic, more extensive in the central Arctic, and similar in the eastern Arctic. Breeding conditions were good on Bylot Island in the eastern Arctic, and an average to above-average fall flight was expected for greater snow geese. Biologists reported later-than-average spring phenology at Southampton Island, the northern and western coastal areas of the Hudson Bay, and the southern portion of Baffin Island. Atlantic brant have had 3 years of low production, and below-average production was expected again this year. Habitat conditions across Atlantic Canada were generally good, except for a more persistent spring snow pack and ice coverage in higher elevation areas in Newfoundland and Labrador. Nesting conditions were below average on the Ungava Peninsula, and lakes and ponds along the eastern Hudson Bay coast remained frozen in mid-June. North Atlantic Population and Atlantic Population Canada goose numbers were similar to recent averages, and average fall flights were expected. Of the Canada goose populations that migrate through the Mississippi Flyway, Eastern Prairie Population numbers were similar to last year, and average to above-average production was expected; Southern James Bay Population and Mississippi Valley Population breeding numbers were down relative to recent years, with
Alaska experienced an early spring and mild breakup of ice with minimal flooding on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta and other interior areas of the State. With less persistent ice and snow cover and favorable breeding conditions in the western Arctic and Alaska, the outlook for goose and swan populations nesting in these areas was good to excellent. With the exception of cackling Canada geese, indices for geese and swans that breed on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta were lower this year compared to last year, though later survey timing relative to the early spring conditions may have contributed to lower counts. Record high counts were observed this year for the Wrangel Island Population of lesser snow geese and dusky Canada geese, and the spring index for emperor geese was the highest recorded in over three decades.
Across much of the Canadian and U.S. prairies, spring phenology was early. Habitat conditions were generally rated good to fair on the Canadian prairies and fair to poor on the U.S. prairies. Southern and central portions of the western United States were exceptionally dry, and habitat conditions there were generally poor. However, production of temperate-nesting Canada geese over most of their North American range is expected to be average, and similar to previous years.
Of the 28 goose and swan populations included in the report, 6 had significant positive trends during the most recent 10-year period (
National surveys of migratory bird hunters were conducted during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 hunting seasons. More than 1 million waterfowl hunters harvested 13,716,400 (± 6 percent) ducks and 3,360,400 (± 6 percent) geese in 2013, and more than 1 million waterfowl hunters harvested 13,267,800 (± 4 percent) ducks and 3,321,100 (± 11 percent) geese in 2014. Mallard, green-winged teal, gadwall, blue-winged/cinnamon teal, and wood duck (
The annual indices to abundance of the Mid-Continent Population (MCP) of sandhill cranes (
The fall 2014 pre-migration survey for the Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) resulted in a count of 19,668 cranes. The 3-year average was 18,482 sandhill cranes, which is within the established population objective of 17,000-21,000 for the RMP. Hunting seasons during 2014-15 in portions of Arizona, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming resulted in a harvest of 624 RMP cranes, an 8 percent decrease from the previous year's harvest.
The Eastern Population (EP) sandhill crane fall survey index (83,479) increased by 30 percent in 2014, and a combined total of 401 cranes were harvested in Kentucky's fourth hunting season and Tennessee's second season.
The American woodcock (
Singing Ground Survey data for 2015 indicate that the number of singing male woodcock per route in the Eastern and Central Management Regions was unchanged from 2014. There was a statistically significant, declining 10-year trend in woodcock heard for the Eastern Management Region during 2005-15, while the 10-year trend in the Central Management Region was not significant. This marks the second year in a row that the 10-year trend in the Eastern Management Region has shown a decline. Both management regions have a long-term (1968-2015) declining trend (−1.1 percent per year in the Eastern Management Region and −0.7 percent per year in the Central Management Region).
The Wing-collection Survey provides an index to recruitment. Wing-collection Survey data indicate that the 2014 recruitment index for the U.S. portion of the Eastern Region (1.49 immatures per adult female) was 6.9 percent less than the 2013 index, and 8.9 percent less than the long-term (1963-2013) average. The recruitment index for the U.S. portion of the Central Region (1.39 immatures per adult female) was 9.7 percent less than the 2013 index and 10.6 percent less than the long-term (1963-2013) average.
During the 2014-15 seasons, hunters in the Eastern Region harvested 58,600 birds, which was 6.2 percent below the number for the previous season and 31.4 percent below the long-term (1999-2013) average. In the Central Region, 141,500 woodcock were harvested, 21.4
Two subspecies of band-tailed pigeon (
The BBS provided evidence that the abundance of Pacific Coast band-tailed pigeons decreased (−1.8 percent per year) over the long term (1968-2014). No trends in abundance were evident during the recent 10- and 5-year periods for both the BBS and MSS. Harvest estimates indicate that 2,900 active hunters took 12,000 pigeons and spent 8,800 days afield in 2014. Composition of harvest was 25 percent hatching-year pigeons.
For Interior band-tailed pigeons, the BBS provided evidence that abundance decreased (−5.5 percent per year) over the long term (1968-2014). Similar to Pacific Coast birds, no trends in abundance were evident during the recent 10- and 5-year periods. An estimated 1,500 hunters harvested 1,500 pigeons and spent 3,300 days afield in 2014.
Doves in the United States are managed in three management units, Eastern (EMU), Central (CMU), and Western (WMU). We annually summarize information collected in the United States on survival, recruitment, abundance, and harvest of mourning doves (
BBS data suggested that the abundance of mourning doves over the last 49 years increased in the Eastern Management Unit (EMU) and decreased in the Central (CMU) and Western (WMU) Management Units. Estimates of absolute abundance are available only since 2003 and indicate that there are about 274 million doves in the United States. Predicted abundances for 2015 (and lower 70 percent credible intervals [CI]) are 79.3 million birds (64.3) for the EMU, 139.5 million (124.3) for the CMU, and 52.6 million (45.0) for the WMU.
Current (2014) HIP estimates for mourning dove total harvest, active hunters, and total days afield in the United States were 13,809,500 birds, 839,600 hunters, and 2,386,700 days afield. Harvest and hunter participation at the unit level were: EMU, 4,889,800 birds, 310,200 hunters, and 791,300 days afield; CMU, 7,654,700 birds, 427,100 hunters, and 1,333,600 days afield; and WMU, 1,265,000 birds, 102,300 hunters, and 261,800 days afield.
The preliminary proposed rulemaking, which appeared in the August 6, 2015,
We received recommendations from all four Flyway Councils. Some recommendations supported continuation of last year's frameworks. Due to the comprehensive nature of the annual review of the frameworks performed by the Councils, support for continuation of last year's frameworks is assumed for items for which no recommendations were received. Council recommendations for changes in the frameworks are summarized below.
We seek additional information and comments on the recommendations in this supplemental proposed rule. New proposals and modifications to previously described proposals are discussed below. Wherever possible, they are discussed under headings corresponding to the numbered items in the August 6, 2015, proposed rule.
The prescribed regulatory alternative for the Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways is based on the status of mallard populations that contribute primarily to each Flyway. In the Atlantic Flyway, we set hunting regulations based on the population status of mallards breeding in eastern North America (Federal survey strata 51-54 and 56, and State surveys in New England and the mid-Atlantic region). In the Central and Mississippi Flyways, we set hunting regulations based on the status and dynamics of mid-continent mallards. Mid-continent mallards are those breeding in central North America (Federal survey strata 13-18, 20-50, and 75-77, and State surveys in Minnesota,
For the 2016-17 season, we recommend continuing to use independent optimization to determine the optimal regulatory choice for each mallard stock. This means that we would develop regulations for eastern mallards, mid-continent mallards, and western mallards independently, based upon the breeding stock that contributes primarily to each Flyway. We detailed implementation of this AHM decision framework for western and mid-continent mallards in the July 24, 2008,
For the 2016-17 hunting season, we are continuing to consider the same regulatory alternatives as those used last year. The nature of the “restrictive,” “moderate,” and “liberal” alternatives has remained essentially unchanged since 1997, except that extended framework dates have been offered in the “moderate” and “liberal” regulatory alternatives since 2002 (67 FR 47224; July 17, 2002).
The optimal AHM strategies for mid-continent, eastern, and western mallards for the 2016-17 hunting season were calculated using: (1) Harvest-management objectives specific to each mallard stock; (2) the 2016-17 regulatory alternatives (see further discussion below under B. Regulatory Alternatives); and (3) current population models and associated weights. Based on “liberal” regulatory alternatives selected for the 2015 hunting season, the 2015 survey results of 11.79 million mid-continent mallards (traditional survey area minus Alaska and the Old Crow Flats area of the Yukon Territory, plus Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan) and 4.15 million ponds in Prairie Canada, 0.73 million eastern mallards (0.19 million and 0.54 million respectively in northeast Canada and the northeastern United States), and 0.73 million western mallards (0.26 million in California-Oregon and 0.47 million in Alaska), the optimal regulatory choice for all four Flyways is the “liberal” alternative. Therefore, we concur with the recommendations of the Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyway Councils regarding selection of the “liberal” regulatory alternative for the 2016-17 season and propose to adopt the “liberal” regulatory alternative, as described in the August 6, 2015,
For the 2016-17 season, we will utilize the 2015 breeding population estimate of 8.3 million blue-winged teal from the traditional survey area and the criteria developed for the teal season harvest strategy. Thus, a 16-day September teal season in the Atlantic, Central, and Mississippi Flyways is appropriate for the 2016 season.
A copy of the strategy is available at the address indicated under
For the 2016-17 season, the optimal country-specific regulatory strategies were calculated using: (1) The black duck harvest objective (98 percent of long-term cumulative harvest); (2) 2016-17 country-specific regulatory alternatives; (3) current parameter estimates for mallard competition and additive mortality; and (4) 2015 survey results of 0.54 million breeding black ducks and 0.41 million breeding mallards in the core survey area. The optimal regulatory choices for the 2016-17 season are the “moderate” package in Canada and the “restrictive” package in the United States.
As we discussed in the August 6, 2015, proposed rule, the current harvest strategy relies on information that is not yet available under this new regulatory process. Thus, the current canvasback harvest management strategy is no longer usable for the 2016-17 season and beyond. We further stated that we do not yet have a new harvest strategy to propose for use in the future and that we would review the most recent information on canvasback populations, habitat conditions, and harvests with the goal of compiling the best information available for use in making a harvest management decision for the 2016-17 season.
As such, we support the Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways' recommendation for a 2-canvasback daily bag limit for the 2016-17 season and will offer the opportunity to all four Flyways. This past year's spring survey resulted in an estimate of 757,000 canvasbacks and 4.15 million Canadian ponds. The former canvasback harvest strategy predicts a 2016 canvasback breeding population of 727,000 birds under the current 2015-16 “liberal” duck season with a 2-canvasback daily bag limit. Our analysis indicates that the expected harvest associated with a 2-bird bag limit during the 2016 season poses a very small possibility of the spring 2017 canvasback abundance falling below 500,000 birds given the current abundance of canvasbacks. However, we also recognize that in previous years where 2 canvasbacks per day were allowed in the daily bag limit, the following year required a more restrictive daily bag limit, and we are prepared to recommend restrictions for the 2017-18 season if necessary. Thus, we strongly encourage the Flyways to begin working with Service staff to develop a process for informing canvasback harvest management decisions prior to the Flyway meetings next March.
For scaup, optimal regulatory strategies for the 2016-17 season were calculated using: (1) An objective to achieve 95 percent of long-term cumulative harvest, (2) current scaup regulatory alternatives, and (3) updated model parameters and weights. Based on a “moderate” regulatory alternative selected in 2015 and the 2015 survey results of 4.40 million scaup, the optimal regulatory choice for the 2016-17 season for all four Flyways is the “moderate” regulatory alternative.
The Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils recommended that we allow States to use their established definitions of age for youth hunters as the age requirement for participation in youth hunting days, not to include anyone over the age of 17.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended striking the participation restriction that youth hunters must be 15 years of age or younger and allowing each State to use their established definition for the age of youth hunters as long as it is 17 years of age or younger. The Council further recommended retaining other participation restrictions requiring that an adult at least 18 years of age must accompany the youth hunter into the field.
We also agree with the Council's recommendation to adjust the opening and closing framework dates for all geese in the Mississippi Flyway to September 1 through February 15 beginning in 2016. The Council's recommendation to change the goose framework opening date from the Saturday nearest September 24 to September 1 is compatible with the recent change in our regulatory schedule that combines the early and late season regulations processes (see also 5. White-fronted Geese and 7. Snow and Ross's (Light) Geese, below).
Lastly, we note that the Council is developing a general Canada Goose Management Plan for the flyway, which will incorporate aspects of existing management plans for migrant populations (Eastern Prairie Population (EPP), Mississippi Valley Population (MVP), and Southern James Bay Population (SJBP)) and the temperate-nesting Giant Canada Goose population. Although the Flyway no longer recognizes zones for EPP, MVP and SJBP populations, we note that portions of the SJBP population migrate to the Atlantic Flyway. Therefore, we urge the Mississippi Flyway Council to consult with the Atlantic Flyway Council as the general Canada goose management plan is being developed for the Mississippi Flyway.
Under the new regulatory schedule for the 2016-17 migratory bird hunting regulations, neither the expected 2016 brant production information (available summer 2016) nor the 2016 MWS count (conducted in January 2016) is yet available. However, the 2016 MWS will be completed and winter brant data will be available by the expected publication of the final frameworks (late February 2016). Therefore, in the September 24, 2015,
• If the mid-winter waterfowl survey (MWS) count is <100,000 Atlantic brant, the season would be closed.
• If the MWS count is between 100,000 and 115,000 brant, States could select a 30-day season with a 1-bird daily bag limit.
• If the MWS count is between 115,000 and 130,000 brant, States could select a 30-day season with a 2-bird daily bag limit.
• If the MWS count is between 130,000 and 150,000 brant, States could select a 50-day season with a 2-bird daily bag limit.
• If the MWS count is between 150,000 and 200,000 brant, States could select a 60-day season with a 2-bird daily bag limit.
• If the MWS count is >200,000 brant, States could select a 60-day season with a 3-bird daily bag limit.
Under all the above open-season alternatives, seasons would be between the Saturday nearest September 24 and January 31. Further, States could split their seasons into 2 segments.
When we acquire the 2016 MWS brant count in January 2016, we will select the appropriate Atlantic brant hunting season for 2016-17 from the above Atlantic brant hunt strategies and publish the result in the final frameworks rule.
The Central and Pacific Flyway Council's recommended (1) the addition of a new Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) sandhill crane hunting unit in Carbon County Montana, (2) a new hunt area for RMP sandhill cranes in Sheridan, Johnson, and Natrona Counties, Wyoming, and (3) that allowable harvest be determined based on the formula described in the Pacific and Central Flyway Management Plan for RMP sandhill cranes.
We also agree with the Central and Pacific Flyway Council's recommendation for new RMP sandhill crane hunting areas in Montana (Carbon County) and Wyoming (Sheridan, Johnson, and Natrona Counties). The new hunt areas are consistent with the Pacific and Central Flyway Council's RMP sandhill crane management plan hunting area requirements.
Regarding the RMP crane harvest, as we discussed in the August 6, 2015, proposed rule, the current harvest strategy used to calculate the allowable harvest of the RMP of sandhill cranes does not fit well within the new regulatory process, similar to the Atlantic brant issue discussed above under 6. Brant. Currently, results of the fall survey of RMP sandhill cranes, upon which the annual allowable harvest is based, will continue to be released between December 15 and January 31 each year, which is after the date for which proposed frameworks will be formulated in the new regulatory process. If the usual procedures for
Thus, we agree that the formula to determine the annual allowable harvest for RMP sandhill cranes should be used under the new regulatory schedule and propose to utilize it as such. That formula uses information on abundance and recruitment collected annually through operational monitoring programs, as well as constant values based on past research or monitoring for survival of fledglings to breeding age and harvest retrieval rate. The formula is:
H = C × P × R × L × f
A final estimate for the allowable harvest would be available to publish in the final rule, allowing us to use data that is 1-3 years old as is currently practiced.
In 2011, we implemented a harvest strategy for woodcock (76 FR 19876, April 8, 2011). The harvest strategy provides a transparent framework for making regulatory decisions for woodcock season length and bag limit while we work to improve monitoring and assessment protocols for this species. Utilizing the criteria developed for the strategy, the 3-year average for the Singing Ground Survey indices and associated confidence intervals fall within the “moderate package” for both the Eastern and Central Management Regions. As such, a “moderate season” for both management regions for the 2016-17 season is appropriate.
Specifics of the harvest strategy can be found at
The Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils recommended the use of the “standard” season package of a 15-bird daily bag limit and a 90-day season for the 2016-17 mourning dove season in the States within the Central Management Unit.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended use of the “standard” season framework for States in the Western Management Unit (WMU) population of mourning doves. In Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, the season length would be no more than 60 consecutive days with a daily bag limit of 15 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate. In Arizona and California, the season length would be no more than 60 consecutive days, which could be split between two periods, September 1-15 and November 1-January 15. In Arizona, during the first segment of the season, the daily bag limit would be 15 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate, of which no more than 10 could be white-winged doves. During the remainder of the season, the daily bag limit would be 15 mourning doves. In California, the daily bag limit would be 15 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate, of which no more than 10 could be white-winged doves.
We also agree with the Pacific Flyway Council's recommendation to increase the light goose daily bag limit from 4 to 6 light geese in Alaska. Two populations of light geese occur in Alaska, and both are above Flyway management plan objectives based on the most recent breeding population indices. The population estimate for the Western Arctic Population (WAP) of lesser snow geese was 451,000 in 2013 (most recent estimate), which is above the objective of 200,000 geese. Most of WAP lesser snow geese nest in the Egg River colony on Banks Island, Canada, but there are small, but growing, nesting colonies along the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska. In 2015, biologists noted high lesser snow goose nest survival (>95%) on the Colville River Delta and Ikpikpuk colonies on the Alaskan Arctic Coastal Plain. Biologists also noted earlier gosling development than any prior documented instance at the later colony. Favorable nesting conditions were also observed across much of the North Slope of Alaska and western Arctic. The population estimate for Wrangel Island snow geese was 240,000 in 2015, which is above the objective of 120,000 geese.
The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever possible, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed regulations. Before promulgating final migratory game bird hunting regulations, we will consider all comments we receive. These comments, and any additional information we receive, may lead to final regulations that differ from these proposals.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
We will post all comments in their entirety—including your personal
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
We will consider, but possibly may not respond in detail to, each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments we receive during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date in the preambles of any final rules.
Based on our most current data, we are affirming our required determinations made in the August 6 proposed rule; for descriptions of our actions to ensure compliance with the following statutes and Executive Orders, see our August 6, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 47388):
• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Consideration;
• Endangered Species Act Consideration;
• Regulatory Flexibility Act;
• Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act;
• Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
• Unfunded Mandates Reform Act;
• Executive Orders 12630, 12866, 12988, 13132, 13175, 13211, and 13563.
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2016-17 hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.
Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and delegated authorities, the Department of the Interior approved the following proposals for season lengths, shooting hours, bag and possession limits, and outside dates within which States may select seasons for hunting migratory game birds between the dates of September 1, 2016, and March 10, 2017. These frameworks are summarized below.
Dates: All outside dates noted below are inclusive.
Shooting and Hawking (taking by falconry) Hours: Unless otherwise specified, from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset daily.
Possession Limits: Unless otherwise specified, possession limits are three times the daily bag limit.
Permits: For some species of migratory birds, the Service authorizes the use of permits to regulate harvest or monitor their take by sport hunters, or both. In many cases (
These Federally authorized, State-issued permits are issued to individuals, and only the individual whose name and address appears on the permit at the time of issuance is authorized to take migratory birds at levels specified in the permit, in accordance with provisions of both Federal and State regulations governing the hunting season. The permit must be carried by the permittee when exercising its provisions and must be presented to any law enforcement officer upon request. The permit is not transferrable or assignable to another individual, and may not be sold, bartered, traded, or otherwise provided to another person. If the permit is altered or defaced in any way, the permit becomes invalid.
Atlantic Flyway: Includes Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Mississippi Flyway: Includes Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.
Central Flyway: Includes Colorado (east of the Continental Divide), Kansas, Montana (Counties of Blaine, Carbon, Fergus, Judith Basin, Stillwater, Sweetgrass, Wheatland, and all counties east thereof), Nebraska, New Mexico (east of the Continental Divide except the Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation), North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming (east of the Continental Divide).
Pacific Flyway: Includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and those portions of Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming not included in the Central Flyway.
High Plains Mallard Management Unit: roughly defined as that portion of the Central Flyway that lies west of the 100th meridian.
Columbia Basin Mallard Management Unit: In Washington, all areas east of the Pacific Crest Trail and east of the Big White Salmon River in Klickitat County; and in Oregon, the counties of Gilliam, Morrow, and Umatilla.
Eastern Management Unit: All States east of the Mississippi River, and Louisiana.
Central Management Unit: Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming.
Western Management Unit: Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.
Eastern Management Region: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Central Management Region: Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Other geographic descriptions are contained in a later portion of this document.
For the purpose of hunting regulations listed below, the collective terms “dark” and “light” geese include the following species:
Area, Zone, and Unit Descriptions: Geographic descriptions related to regulations are contained in a later portion of this document.
Area-Specific Provisions: Frameworks for open seasons, season lengths, bag and possession limits, and other special provisions are listed below by Flyway.
In the Atlantic Flyway States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, where Sunday hunting is prohibited Statewide by State law, all Sundays are closed to all take of migratory waterfowl (including mergansers and coots).
Outside Dates: States may select 2 days per duck-hunting zone, designated as “Youth Waterfowl Hunting Days,” in addition to their regular duck seasons. The days must be held outside any regular duck season on a weekend, holidays, or other non-school days when youth hunters would have the maximum opportunity to participate. The days may be held up to 14 days before or after any regular duck-season frameworks or within any split of a regular duck season, or within any other open season on migratory birds.
Daily Bag Limits: The daily bag limits may include ducks, geese, tundra swans, mergansers, coots, moorhens, and gallinules and would be the same as those allowed in the regular season. Flyway species and area restrictions would remain in effect.
Shooting Hours: One-half hour before sunrise to sunset.
Participation Restrictions: States may use their established definition of age for youth hunters. However, youth hunters may not be over the age of 17. In addition, an adult at least 18 years of age must accompany the youth hunter into the field. This adult may not duck hunt but may participate in other seasons that are open on the special youth day. Youth hunters 16 years of age and older must possess a Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (also known as Federal Duck Stamp). Tundra swans may only be taken by participants possessing applicable tundra swan permits.
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and September 30, an open season on all species of teal may be selected by the following States in areas delineated by State regulations:
Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag Limits: Not to exceed 16 consecutive hunting days in the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyways. The daily bag limit is 6 teal.
Shooting Hours:
Outside Dates: Between the Saturday nearest September 24 (September 24) and the last Sunday in January (January 29).
Hunting Seasons and Duck Limits: 60 days. The daily bag limit is 6 ducks, including no more than 4 mallards (no more than 2 of which can be females), 1 black duck, 2 pintails, 1 mottled duck, 1 fulvous whistling duck, 3 wood ducks, 2 redheads, 2 scaup, 2 canvasbacks, 4 scoters, 4 eiders, and 4 long-tailed ducks.
Closures: The season on harlequin ducks is closed.
Merganser Limits: The daily bag limit of mergansers is 5, only 2 of which may be hooded mergansers. In States that include mergansers in the duck bag limit, the daily limit is the same as the duck bag limit, only 2 of which may be hooded mergansers.
Coot Limits: The daily bag limit is 15 coots.
Lake Champlain Zone, New York: The waterfowl seasons, limits, and shooting hours should be the same as those selected for the Lake Champlain Zone of Vermont.
Connecticut River Zone, Vermont: The waterfowl seasons, limits, and shooting hours should be the same as those selected for the Inland Zone of New Hampshire.
Zoning and Split Seasons: Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia may split their seasons into three segments; Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont may select hunting seasons by zones and may split their seasons into two segments in each zone.
Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South
Outside Dates: Between September 15 and January 31.
Special Sea Duck Seasons and Daily Bag Limits: 60 consecutive hunting days, with a daily bag limit of 5, singly or in the aggregate, of the listed sea duck species, including no more than 4 scoters, 4 eiders, and 4 long-tailed ducks. If the regular duck season is open in the Special Sea Duck Area, other ducks may be taken in the Special Sea Duck Area(s), but the total daily bag limit cannot exceed 6 ducks in these areas, including no more than 5 sea ducks. At no time or place are special sea duck daily bag limits considered to be in addition to daily bag limits for regular ducks.
Special Sea Duck Areas: In all coastal waters and all waters of rivers and streams seaward from the first upstream bridge in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York; in New Jersey, all coastal waters seaward from the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) Demarcation Lines shown on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Nautical Charts and further described in 33 CFR 80.165, 80.170, 80.501, and 80.503; in any waters of the Atlantic Ocean and in any tidal waters of any bay that are separated by at least 1 mile of open water from any shore, island, and emergent vegetation in South Carolina and Georgia; and in any waters of the Atlantic Ocean and in any tidal waters of any bay that are separated by at least 800 yards of open water from any shore, island, and emergent vegetation in Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia; and provided that any such areas have been described, delineated, and designated as special sea duck hunting areas under the hunting regulations adopted by the respective States.
A Canada goose season of up to 15 days during September 1-15 may be selected for the Eastern Unit of Maryland. Seasons not to exceed 30 days during September 1-30 may be selected for Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, New York (Long Island Zone only), North Carolina, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. Seasons may not exceed 25 days during September 1-25 in the remainder of the Flyway. Areas open to the hunting of Canada geese must be described, delineated, and designated as such in each State's hunting regulations.
Daily Bag Limits: Not to exceed 15 Canada geese.
Shooting Hours: One-half hour before sunrise to sunset, except that during any special early Canada goose season, shooting hours may extend to one-half hour after sunset if all other waterfowl seasons are closed in the specific applicable area.
Season Lengths, Outside Dates, and Limits: Specific regulations for Canada geese are shown below by State. These seasons may also include white-fronted geese in an aggregate daily bag limit. Unless specified otherwise, seasons may be split into two segments.
North Atlantic Population (NAP) Zone: Between October 1 and February 15, a 70-day season may be held with a 3-bird daily bag limit.
Atlantic Population (AP) Zone: A 50-day season may be held between October 10 and February 5, with a 3-bird daily bag limit.
South Zone: A special season may be held between January 15 and February 15, with a 5-bird daily bag limit.
Resident Population (RP) Zone: An 80-day season may be held between October 1 and February 15, with a 5-bird daily bag limit. The season may be split into 3 segments.
RP Zone: An 80-day season may be held between November 15 and March 10, with a 5-bird daily bag limit. The season may be split into 3 segments.
AP Zone: A 50-day season may be held between November 15 and February 5, with a 2-bird daily bag limit.
NAP Zone: A 70-day season may be held between October 1 and February 15, with a 3-bird daily bag limit. Additionally, a special season may be held from January 15 to February 15, with a 5-bird daily bag limit.
AP Zone: A 50-day season may be held between October 10 and February 5, with a 3-bird daily bag limit.
AP Zone: A 50-day season may be held between the fourth Saturday in October (October 22) and February 5, with a 3-bird daily bag limit.
RP Zone: An 80-day season may be held between the fourth Saturday in October (October 22) and February 15, with a 5-bird daily bag limit. The season may be split into 3 segments.
Special Late Goose Season Area: A special season may be held in designated areas of North and South New Jersey from January 15 to February 15, with a 5-bird daily bag limit.
NAP Zone: Between October 1 and February 15, a 70-day season may be held, with a 3-bird daily bag limit in both the High Harvest and Low Harvest areas.
Special Late Goose Season Area: A special season may be held between January 15 and February 15, with a 5-bird daily bag limit in designated areas of Suffolk County.
AP Zone: A 50-day season may be held between the fourth Saturday in October (October 22), except in the Lake Champlain Area where the opening date is October 10, through February 5, with a 3-bird daily bag limit.
Western Long Island RP Zone: A 107-day season may be held between the Saturday nearest September 24 (September 24) and March 10, with an 8-bird daily bag limit. The season may be split into 3 segments.
Rest of State RP Zone: An 80-day season may be held between the fourth Saturday in October (October 22) and March 10, with a 5-bird daily bag limit. The season may be split into 3 segments.
SJBP Zone: A 70-day season may be held between October 1 and December 31, with a 5-bird daily bag limit.
RP Zone: An 80-day season may be held between October 1 and March 10, with a 5-bird daily bag limit. The season may be split into 3 segments.
Northeast Hunt Unit: A 14-day season may be held between the Saturday prior to December 25 (December 24) and January 31, with a 1-bird daily bag limit.
SJBP Zone: A 78-day season may be held between the first Saturday in October (October 1) and February 15, with a 3-bird daily bag limit.
RP Zone: An 80-day season may be held between the fourth Saturday in October (October 22) and March 10, with a 5-bird daily bag limit. The season may be split into 3 segments.
AP Zone: A 50-day season may be held between the fourth Saturday in October (October 22) and February 5, with a 3-bird daily bag limit.
Lake Champlain Zone and Interior Zone: A 50-day season may be held between October 10 and February 5 with a 3-bird daily bag limit.
Connecticut River Zone: A 70-day season may be held between October 1 and February 15, with a 3-bird daily bag limit.
SJBP Zone: A 40-day season may be held between November 15 and January 14, with a 3-bird daily bag limit. Additionally, a special late season may be held between January 15 and February 15, with a 5-bird daily bag limit.
AP Zone: A 50-day season may be held between November 15 and February 5, with a 2-bird daily bag limit.
RP Zone: An 80-day season may be held between November 15 and March 10, with a 5-bird daily bag limit. The season may be split into 3 segments.
Season Lengths, Outside Dates, and Limits: States may select a 107-day season between October 1 and March 10, with a 25-bird daily bag limit and no possession limit. States may split their seasons into three segments.
Season Lengths, Outside Dates, and Limits: States may select a 30-day season between the Saturday nearest September 24 (September 24) and January 31. States may split their seasons into two segments. Season length and daily bag limits will be based on the upcoming MWS results and the Atlantic brant hunt plan.
Outside Dates: Between the Saturday nearest September 24 (September 24) and the last Sunday in January (January 29).
Hunting Seasons and Duck Limits: The season may not exceed 60 days, with a daily bag limit of 6 ducks, including no more than 4 mallards (no more than 2 of which may be females), 1 mottled duck, 1 black duck, 2 pintails, 3 wood ducks, 2 canvasbacks, 3 scaup, and 2 redheads.
Merganser Limits: The daily bag limit is 5, only 2 of which may be hooded mergansers. In States that include mergansers in the duck bag limit, the daily limit is the same as the duck bag limit, only 2 of which may be hooded mergansers.
Coot Limits: The daily bag limit is 15 coots.
Zoning and Split Seasons: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin may select hunting seasons by zones.
In Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, the season may be split into two segments in each zone.
In Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi, the season may be split into three segments.
Season Lengths, Outside Dates, and Limits:
Canada Geese: States may select seasons for Canada geese not to exceed 107 days with a 5-bird daily bag limit September 1-30 (except in the Intensive Harvest Zone in Minnesota, which may have up to a 10-bird daily bag limit) and a 3-bird daily bag limit for the remainder of the season. Seasons may be held between September 1 and February 15 and may be split into 4 segments.
White-fronted Geese and Brant: Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, and Tennessee may select a season for white-fronted geese not to exceed 74 days with 3 geese daily, or 88 days with 2 geese daily, or 107 days with 1 goose daily between September 1 and February 15; Alabama, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin may select a season for white-fronted geese not to exceed 107 days with 5 geese daily, in aggregate with dark geese. States may select a season for brant not to exceed 70 days with 2 brant daily, or 107 days with 1 brant daily with outside dates the same as for Canada geese; alternately, States may include brant in an aggregate goose bag limit with either Canada geese, white-fronted geese, or dark geese.
Light Geese: States may select seasons for light geese not to exceed 107 days, with 20 geese daily between the Saturday nearest September 24 (September 24) and February 15. There is no possession limit for light geese.
Shooting Hours: One-half hour before sunrise to sunset, except that during September 1-15 shooting hours may extend to one-half hour after sunset for Canada geese if all other waterfowl and crane seasons are closed in the specific applicable area.
Split Seasons: Seasons for geese may be split into three segments unless otherwise indicated.
Outside Dates: Between the Saturday nearest September 24 (September 24) and the last Sunday in January (January 29).
Hunting Seasons:
High Plains Mallard Management Unit (roughly defined as that portion of the Central Flyway that lies west of the 100th meridian): 97 days. The last 23 days must run consecutively and may start no earlier than the Saturday nearest December 10 (December 10).
Remainder of the Central Flyway: 74 days.
Duck Limits: The daily bag limit is 6 ducks, with species and sex restrictions as follows: 5 mallards (no more than 2 of which may be females), 3 scaup, 2 redheads, 3 wood ducks, 2 pintails, and 2 canvasbacks. In Texas, the daily bag limit on mottled ducks is 1, except that no mottled ducks may be taken during the first 5 days of the season. In addition to the daily limits listed above, the States of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming, in lieu of selecting an experimental September teal season, may include an additional daily bag and possession limit of 2 and 6 blue-winged teal, respectively, during the first 16 days of the regular duck season in each respective duck hunting zone. These extra limits are in addition to the regular duck bag and possession limits.
Merganser Limits: The daily bag limit is 5 mergansers, only 2 of which may be hooded mergansers. In States that include mergansers in the duck daily
Coot Limits: The daily bag limit is 15 coots.
Zoning and Split Seasons: Colorado, Kansas (Low Plains portion), Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma (Low Plains portion), South Dakota (Low Plains portion), Texas (Low Plains portion), and Wyoming may select hunting seasons by zones.
In Colorado, Kansas, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming, the regular season may be split into two segments.
Special Early Canada Goose Seasons:
In Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas, Canada goose seasons of up to 30 days during September 1-30 may be selected. In Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming, Canada goose seasons of up to 15 days during September 1-15 may be selected. The daily bag limit may not exceed 5 Canada geese, except in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma, where the daily bag limit may not exceed 8 Canada geese and in North Dakota and South Dakota, where the daily bag limit may not exceed 15 Canada geese. Areas open to the hunting of Canada geese must be described, delineated, and designated as such in each State's hunting regulations.
Shooting Hours: One-half hour before sunrise to sunset, except that during September 1-15 shooting hours may extend to one-half hour after sunset if all other waterfowl and crane seasons are closed in the specific applicable area.
Regular Goose Seasons:
Split Seasons: Seasons for geese may be split into three segments. Three-way split seasons for Canada geese require Central Flyway Council and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approval, and a 3-year evaluation by each participating State.
Outside Dates: For dark geese, seasons may be selected between the outside dates of the Saturday nearest September 24 (September 24) and the Sunday nearest February 15 (February 12). For light geese, outside dates for seasons may be selected between the Saturday nearest September 24 (September 24) and March 10. In the Rainwater Basin Light Goose Area (East and West) of Nebraska, temporal and spatial restrictions that are consistent with the late-winter snow goose hunting strategy cooperatively developed by the Central Flyway Council and the Service are required.
Season Lengths and Limits:
Light Geese: States may select a light goose season not to exceed 107 days. The daily bag limit for light geese is 50 with no possession limit.
Dark Geese: In Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and the Eastern Goose Zone of Texas, States may select a season for Canada geese (or any other dark goose species except white-fronted geese) not to exceed 107 days with a daily bag limit of 8. For white-fronted geese, these States may select either a season of 74 days with a bag limit of 3, or an 88-day season with a bag limit of 2, or a season of 107 days with a bag limit of 1.
In Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming, States may select seasons not to exceed 107 days. The daily bag limit for dark geese is 5 in the aggregate.
In the Western Goose Zone of Texas, the season may not exceed 95 days. The daily bag limit for Canada geese (or any other dark goose species except white-fronted geese) is 5. The daily bag limit for white-fronted geese is 2.
Outside Dates: Between the Saturday nearest September 24 (September 24) and the last Sunday in January (January 29).
Hunting Seasons and Duck and Merganser Limits: 107 days. The daily bag limit is 7 ducks and mergansers, including no more than 2 female mallards, 2 pintails, 2 canvasbacks, 3 scaup, and 2 redheads. For scaup, the season length is 86 days, which may be split according to applicable zones and split duck hunting configurations approved for each State.
Coot, Common Moorhen, and Purple Gallinule Limits: The daily bag limit of coots, common moorhens, and purple gallinules is 25, singly or in the aggregate.
Zoning and Split Seasons: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming may select hunting seasons by zones and may split their seasons into two segments.
Montana and New Mexico may split their seasons into three segments.
Colorado River Zone, California: Seasons and limits should be the same as seasons and limits selected in the adjacent portion of Arizona (South Zone).
Special Early Canada Goose Seasons:
A Canada goose season of up to 15 days during September 1-20 may be selected. The daily bag limit may not exceed 5 Canada geese, except in Pacific County, Washington, where the daily bag limit may not exceed 15 Canada geese. Areas open to hunting of Canada geese in each State must be described, delineated, and designated as such in each State's hunting regulations.
Regular Goose Seasons:
Season Lengths, Outside Dates, and Limits:
Canada geese and brant: Except as subsequently noted, 107-day seasons may be selected with outside dates between the Saturday nearest September 24 (September 24) and the last Sunday in January (January 29). In Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Utah, the daily bag limit is 4 Canada geese and brant in the aggregate. In New Mexico and Wyoming, the daily bag limit is 3 Canada geese and brant in the aggregate. In California, Oregon, and Washington, the daily bag limit is 4 Canada geese. For brant, Oregon and Washington may select a 16-day season and California a 37-day season. Days must be consecutive. Washington and California may select hunting seasons for up to two zones. The daily bag limit is 2 brant and is in addition to other goose limits. In Oregon and California, the brant season must end no later than December 15.
White-fronted geese: Except as subsequently noted, 107-day seasons may be selected with outside dates between the Saturday nearest September 24 (September 24) and March 10. The daily bag limit is 10.
Light geese: Except as subsequently noted, 107-day seasons may be selected with outside dates between the Saturday nearest September 24 (September 24) and March 10. The daily bag limit is 20.
Split Seasons: Unless otherwise specified, seasons for geese may be split into up to 3 segments. Three-way split seasons for Canada geese and white-fronted geese require Pacific Flyway Council and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approval and a 3-year evaluation by each participating State.
Balance of State Zone: A Canada goose season may be selected with outside dates between the Saturday nearest September 24 (September 24) and March 10. In the Sacramento Valley Special Management Area, the season on white-fronted geese must end on or before December 28, and the daily bag limit is 3 white-fronted geese. In the North Coast Special Management Area, hunting days that occur after the last Sunday in January should be concurrent with Oregon's South Coast Zone.
Zone 2: Idaho will continue to monitor the snow goose hunt that occurs after the last Sunday in January in the American Falls Reservoir/Fort Hall Bottoms and surrounding areas at 3-year intervals.
Harney and Lake County Zone: For Lake County only, the daily white-fronted goose bag limit is 1.
Northwest Permit Zone: A Canada goose season may be selected with outside dates between the Saturday nearest September 24 (September 24) and March 10. Goose seasons may be split into 3 segments. The daily bag limit of light geese is 6. In the Tillamook County Management Area, the hunting season is closed on geese.
South Coast Zone: A Canada goose season may be selected with outside dates between the Saturday nearest September 24 (September 24) and March 10. The daily bag limit of Canada geese is 6. Hunting days that occur after the last Sunday in January should be concurrent with California's North Coast Special Management Area. Goose seasons may be split into 3 segments.
Area 1: Goose season outside dates are between the Saturday nearest September 24 (September 24) and the last Sunday in January (January 29).
Areas 2A and 2B (Southwest Permit Zone): A Canada goose season may be selected with outside dates between the Saturday nearest September 24 (September 24) and March 10. Goose seasons may be split into 3 segments.
Area 4: Goose seasons may be split into 3 segments.
In Oregon and Washington permit zones, the hunting season is closed on dusky Canada geese. A dusky Canada goose is any dark-breasted Canada goose (Munsell 10 YR color value five or less) with a bill length between 40 and 50 millimeters. Hunting of geese will only be by hunters possessing a State-issued permit authorizing them to do so. Shooting hours for geese may begin no earlier than sunrise. Regular Canada goose seasons in the permit zones of Oregon and Washington remain subject to the Memorandum of Understanding entered into with the Service regarding monitoring the impacts of take during the regular Canada goose season on the dusky Canada goose population.
In portions of the Pacific Flyway (Montana, Nevada, and Utah), an open season for taking a limited number of swans may be selected. Permits will be issued by the State and will authorize each permittee to take no more than 1 swan per season with each permit. Nevada may issue up to 2 permits per hunter. Montana and Utah may issue only 1 permit per hunter. Each State's season may open no earlier than the Saturday nearest October 1 (October 1). These seasons are also subject to the following conditions:
In addition, the States of Utah and Nevada must implement a harvest-monitoring program to measure the species composition of the swan harvest. The harvest-monitoring program must require that all harvested swans or their species-determinant parts be examined by either State or Federal biologists for the purpose of species classification. The States should use appropriate measures to maximize hunter compliance in providing bagged swans for examination. Further, the States of Montana, Nevada, and Utah must achieve at least an 80-percent hunter compliance rate, or subsequent permits will be reduced by 10 percent. All three States must provide to the Service by June 30, 2017, a report detailing harvest, hunter participation, reporting compliance, and monitoring of swan populations in the designated hunt areas.
In portions of the Atlantic Flyway (North Carolina and Virginia) and the Central Flyway (North Dakota, South Dakota [east of the Missouri River], and that portion of Montana in the Central Flyway), an open season for taking a limited number of tundra swans may be selected. Permits will be issued by the States that authorize the take of no more than 1 tundra swan per permit. A second permit may be issued to hunters from unused permits remaining after the first drawing. The States must obtain harvest and hunter participation data. These seasons are also subject to the following conditions:
Regular Seasons in the Mississippi Flyway:
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and February 28 in Minnesota and between September 1 and January 31 in Kentucky.
Hunting Seasons: A season not to exceed 37 consecutive days may be selected in the designated portion of northwestern Minnesota (Northwest Goose Zone), and a season not to exceed 60 consecutive days, in Kentucky.
Daily Bag Limit: 2 sandhill cranes. In Kentucky the seasonal bag limit is 3 sandhill cranes.
Permits: Each person participating in the regular sandhill crane seasons must have a valid Federal or State sandhill crane hunting permit.
Other Provisions: The number of permits (where applicable), open areas, season dates, protection plans for other species, and other provisions of seasons
Experimental Season in the Mississippi Flyway:
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and January 31.
Hunting Seasons: A season not to exceed 60 consecutive days may be selected in Tennessee.
Bag Limit: Not to exceed 3 daily and 3 per season in Tennessee.
Permits: Each person participating in the regular sandhill crane season must have a valid Federal or State sandhill crane hunting permit.
Other Provisions: Numbers of permits, open areas, season dates, protection plans for other species, and other provisions of seasons must be consistent with the management plan and approved by the Mississippi Flyway Council.
Regular Seasons in the Central Flyway:
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and February 28.
Hunting Seasons: Seasons not to exceed 37 consecutive days may be selected in designated portions of Texas (Area 2). Seasons not to exceed 58 consecutive days may be selected in designated portions of the following States: Colorado, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Seasons not to exceed 93 consecutive days may be selected in designated portions of the following States: New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
Daily Bag Limits: 3 sandhill cranes, except 2 sandhill cranes in designated portions of North Dakota (Area 2) and Texas (Area 2).
Permits: Each person participating in the regular sandhill crane season must have a valid Federal or State sandhill crane hunting permit.
Special Seasons in the Central and Pacific Flyways:
Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming may select seasons for hunting sandhill cranes within the range of the Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) subject to the following conditions:
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and January 31.
Hunting Seasons: The season in any State or zone may not exceed 30 consecutive days.
Bag limits: Not to exceed 3 daily and 9 per season.
Permits: Participants must have a valid permit, issued by the appropriate State, in their possession while hunting.
Other Provisions: Numbers of permits, open areas, season dates, protection plans for other species, and other provisions of seasons must be consistent with the management plan and approved by the Central and Pacific Flyway Councils, with the following exceptions:
A. In Utah, 100 percent of the harvest will be assigned to the RMP quota;
B. In Arizona, monitoring the racial composition of the harvest must be conducted at 3-year intervals;
C. In Idaho, 100 percent of the harvest will be assigned to the RMP quota; and
D. In New Mexico, the season in the Estancia Valley is experimental, with a requirement to monitor the level and racial composition of the harvest; greater sandhill cranes in the harvest will be assigned to the RMP quota.
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and the last Sunday in January (January 29) in the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyways. States in the Pacific Flyway have been allowed to select their hunting seasons between the outside dates for the season on ducks, mergansers, and coots; therefore, frameworks for common moorhens and purple gallinules are included with the duck, merganser, and coot frameworks.
Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag Limits: Seasons may not exceed 70 days in the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyways. Seasons may be split into 2 segments. The daily bag limit is 15 common moorhens and purple gallinules, singly or in the aggregate of the two species.
Zoning: Seasons may be selected by zones established for duck hunting.
Outside Dates: States included herein may select seasons between September 1 and the last Sunday in January (January 29) on clapper, king, sora, and Virginia rails.
Hunting Seasons: Seasons may not exceed 70 days, and may be split into 2 segments.
Daily Bag Limits:
Clapper and King Rails: In Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, 10, singly or in the aggregate of the two species. In Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, 15, singly or in the aggregate of the two species.
Sora and Virginia Rails: In the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyways and the Pacific Flyway portions of Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming, 25 rails, singly or in the aggregate of the two species. The season is closed in the remainder of the Pacific Flyway.
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and February 28, except in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia, where the season must end no later than January 31.
Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag Limits: Seasons may not exceed 107 days and may be split into two segments. The daily bag limit is 8 snipe.
Zoning: Seasons may be selected by zones established for duck hunting.
Outside Dates: States in the Eastern Management Region may select hunting seasons between October 1 and January 31. States in the Central Management Region may select hunting seasons between the Saturday nearest September 22 (September 24) and January 31.
Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag Limits: Seasons may not exceed 45 days in the Eastern and Central Regions. The daily bag limit is 3. Seasons may be split into two segments.
Zoning: New Jersey may select seasons in each of two zones. The season in each zone may not exceed 36 days.
Outside Dates: Between September 15 and January 1.
Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag Limits: Not more than 9 consecutive days, with a daily bag limit of 2.
Zoning: California may select hunting seasons not to exceed 9 consecutive days in each of two zones. The season in the North Zone must close by October 3.
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and November 30.
Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag Limits: Not more than 14 consecutive days, with a daily bag limit of 2.
Zoning: New Mexico may select hunting seasons not to exceed 14 consecutive days in each of two zones. The season in the South Zone may not open until October 1.
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and January 15, except as otherwise provided, States may select hunting seasons and daily bag limits as follows:
Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag Limits: Not more than 90 days, with a daily bag limit of 15 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate.
Zoning and Split Seasons: States may select hunting seasons in each of two zones. The season within each zone may be split into not more than three periods. Regulations for bag and possession limits, season length, and shooting hours must be uniform within specific hunting zones.
For all States except Texas:
Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag Limits: Not more than 90 days, with a daily bag limit of 15 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate.
Zoning and Split Seasons: States may select hunting seasons in each of two zones. The season within each zone may be split into not more than three periods.
Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag Limits: Not more than 90 days, with a daily bag limit of 15 mourning, white-winged, and white-tipped doves in the aggregate, of which no more than 2 may be white-tipped doves.
Zoning and Split Seasons: Texas may select hunting seasons for each of three zones subject to the following conditions:
A. The hunting season may be split into not more than two periods, except in that portion of Texas in which the special white-winged dove season is allowed, where a limited take of mourning and white-tipped doves may also occur during that special season (see Special White-winged Dove Area).
B. A season may be selected for the North and Central Zones between September 1 and January 25; and for the South Zone between the Friday nearest September 20 (September 23), but not earlier than September 17, and January 25.
C. Except as noted above, regulations for bag and possession limits, season length, and shooting hours must be uniform within each hunting zone.
Special White-winged Dove Area in Texas:
In addition, Texas may select a hunting season of not more than 4 days for the Special White-winged Dove Area of the South Zone between September 1 and September 19. The daily bag limit may not exceed 15 white-winged, mourning, and white-tipped doves in the aggregate, of which no more than 2 may be mourning doves and no more than 2 may be white-tipped doves.
Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag Limits:
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and January 26.
Hunting Seasons: Alaska may select 107 consecutive days for waterfowl, sandhill cranes, and common snipe in each of 5 zones. The season may be split without penalty in the Kodiak Zone. The seasons in each zone must be concurrent.
Closures: The hunting season is closed on emperor geese, spectacled eiders, and Steller's eiders.
Daily Bag and Possession Limits:
Ducks: Except as noted, a basic daily bag limit of 7 ducks. Daily bag limits in the North Zone are 10, and in the Gulf Coast Zone, they are 8. The basic limits may include no more than 1 canvasback daily and may not include sea ducks.
In addition to the basic duck limits, Alaska may select sea duck limits of 10 daily, singly or in the aggregate, including no more than 6 each of either harlequin or long-tailed ducks. Sea ducks include scoters, common and king eiders, harlequin ducks, long-tailed ducks, and common and red-breasted mergansers.
Light Geese: The daily bag limit is 6.
Canada Geese: The daily bag limit is 4 with the following exceptions:
A. In Units 5 and 6, the taking of Canada geese is permitted from September 28 through December 16.
B. On Middleton Island in Unit 6, a special, permit-only Canada goose season may be offered. A mandatory goose identification class is required. Hunters must check in and check out. The bag limit is 1 daily and 1 in possession. The season will close if incidental harvest includes 5 dusky Canada geese. A dusky Canada goose is any dark-breasted Canada goose (Munsell 10 YR color value five or less) with a bill length between 40 and 50 millimeters.
C. In Units 9, 10, 17, and 18, the daily bag limit is 6 Canada geese.
White-fronted Geese: The daily bag limit is 4 with the following exceptions:
A. In Units 9, 10, and 17, the daily bag limit is 6 white-fronted geese.
B. In Unit 18, the daily bag limit is 10 white-fronted geese.
Brant: The daily bag limit is 3.
Snipe: The daily bag limit is 8.
Sandhill cranes: The daily bag limit is 2 in the Southeast, Gulf Coast, Kodiak, and Aleutian Zones, and Unit 17 in the North Zone. In the remainder of the North Zone (outside Unit 17), the daily bag limit is 3.
Tundra Swans: Open seasons for tundra swans may be selected subject to the following conditions:
A. All seasons are by registration permit only.
B. All season framework dates are September 1-October 31.
C. In Unit 17, no more than 200 permits may be issued during this operational season. No more than 3 tundra swans may be authorized per permit, with no more than 1 permit issued per hunter per season.
D. In Unit 18, no more than 500 permits may be issued during the operational season. No more than 3 tundra swans may be authorized per permit. No more than 1 permit may be issued per hunter per season.
E. In Unit 22, no more than 300 permits may be issued during the operational season. No more than 3 tundra swans may be authorized per permit. No more than 1 permit may be issued per hunter per season.
F. In Unit 23, no more than 300 permits may be issued during the operational season. No more than 3 tundra swans may be authorized per permit. No more than 1 permit may be issued per hunter per season.
Outside Dates: Between October 1 and January 31.
Hunting Seasons: Not more than 65 days (75 under the alternative) for mourning doves.
Bag Limits: Not to exceed 15 (12 under the alternative) mourning doves.
Note: Mourning doves may be taken in Hawaii in accordance with shooting hours and other regulations set by the State of Hawaii, and subject to the applicable provisions of 50 CFR part 20.
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and January 15.
Hunting Seasons: Not more than 60 days.
Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Not to exceed 20 Zenaida, mourning, and white-winged doves in the aggregate, of which not more than 10 may be Zenaida doves and 3 may be mourning doves. Not to exceed 5 scaly-naped pigeons.
Closed Seasons: The season is closed on the white-crowned pigeon and the plain pigeon, which are protected by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Closed Areas: There is no open season on doves or pigeons in the following areas: Municipality of Culebra, Desecheo Island, Mona Island, El Verde Closure Area, and Cidra Municipality and adjacent areas.
Outside Dates: Between October 1 and January 31.
Hunting Seasons: Not more than 55 days may be selected for hunting ducks, common moorhens, and common snipe. The season may be split into two segments.
Daily Bag Limits:
Ducks: Not to exceed 6.
Common moorhens: Not to exceed 6.
Common snipe: Not to exceed 8.
Closed Seasons: The season is closed on the ruddy duck, white-cheeked pintail, West Indian whistling duck, fulvous whistling duck, and masked duck, which are protected by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The season also is closed on the purple gallinule, American coot, and Caribbean coot.
Closed Areas: There is no open season on ducks, common moorhens, and common snipe in the Municipality of Culebra and on Desecheo Island.
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and January 15.
Hunting Seasons: Not more than 60 days for Zenaida doves.
Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Not to exceed 10 Zenaida doves.
Closed Seasons: No open season is prescribed for ground or quail doves or pigeons.
Closed Areas: There is no open season for migratory game birds on Ruth Cay (just south of St. Croix).
Local Names for Certain Birds: Zenaida dove, also known as mountain dove; bridled quail-dove, also known as Barbary dove or partridge; common ground-dove, also known as stone dove, tobacco dove, rola, or tortolita; scaly-naped pigeon, also known as red-necked or scaled pigeon.
Outside Dates: Between December 1 and January 31.
Hunting Seasons: Not more than 55 consecutive days.
Daily Bag Limits: Not to exceed 6.
Closed Seasons: The season is closed on the ruddy duck, white-cheeked pintail, West Indian whistling duck, fulvous whistling duck, and masked duck.
Falconry is a permitted means of taking migratory game birds in any State meeting Federal falconry standards in 50 CFR 21.29. These States may select an extended season for taking migratory game birds in accordance with the following:
Extended Seasons: For all hunting methods combined, the combined length of the extended season, regular season, and any special or experimental seasons must not exceed 107 days for any species or group of species in a geographical area. Each extended season may be divided into a maximum of 3 segments.
Framework Dates: Seasons must fall between September 1 and March 10.
Daily Bag Limits: Falconry daily bag limits for all permitted migratory game birds must not exceed 3 birds, singly or in the aggregate, during extended falconry seasons, any special or experimental seasons, and regular hunting seasons in all States, including those that do not select an extended falconry season.
Regular Seasons: General hunting regulations, including seasons and hunting hours, apply to falconry in each State listed in 50 CFR 21.29. Regular season bag limits do not apply to falconry. The falconry bag limit is not in addition to gun limits.
North Zone: That portion of the State north of I-95.
South Zone: Remainder of the State.
North Zone: That portion north of the line extending east along Maine State Highway 110 from the New Hampshire-Maine State line to the intersection of Maine State Highway 11 in Newfield; then north and east along Route 11 to the intersection of U.S. Route 202 in Auburn; then north and east on Route 202 to the intersection of I-95 in Augusta; then north and east along I-95 to Route 15 in Bangor; then east along Route 15 to Route 9; then east along Route 9 to Stony Brook in Baileyville; then east along Stony Brook to the United States border.
Coastal Zone: That portion south of a line extending east from the Maine-New Brunswick border in Calais at the Route 1 Bridge; then south along Route 1 to the Maine-New Hampshire border in Kittery.
South Zone: Remainder of the State.
Special Teal Season Area: Calvert, Caroline, Cecil, Dorchester, Harford, Kent, Queen Anne's, St. Mary's, Somerset, Talbot, Wicomico, and Worcester Counties; that part of Anne Arundel County east of Interstate 895, Interstate 97, and Route 3; that part of Prince George's County east of Route 3 and Route 301; and that part of Charles County east of Route 301 to the Virginia State Line.
Western Zone: That portion of the State west of a line extending south from the Vermont State line on I-91 to MA 9, west on MA 9 to MA 10, south on MA 10 to U.S. 202, south on U.S. 202 to the Connecticut State line.
Central Zone: That portion of the State east of the Berkshire Zone and west of a line extending south from the New Hampshire State line on I-95 to U.S. 1, south on U.S. 1 to I-93, south on I-93 to MA 3, south on MA 3 to U.S. 6, west on U.S. 6 to MA 28, west on MA 28 to I-195, west to the Rhode Island State line; except the waters, and the lands 150 yards inland from the high-water mark, of the Assonet River upstream to the MA 24 bridge, and the Taunton River upstream to the Center St.-Elm St. bridge shall be in the Coastal Zone.
Coastal Zone: That portion of Massachusetts east and south of the Central Zone.
Northern Zone: That portion of the State east and north of the Inland Zone beginning at the Jct. of Rte. 10 and Rte. 25-A in Orford, east on Rte. 25A to Rte. 25 in Wentworth, southeast on Rte. 25 to Exit 26 of Rte. I-93 in Plymouth, south on Rte. I-93 to Rte. 3 at Exit 24 of Rte. I-93 in Ashland, northeast on Rte. 3 to Rte. 113 in Holderness, north on Rte. 113 to Rte. 113-A in Sandwich,
Inland Zone: That portion of the State south and west of the Northern Zone, west of the Coastal Zone, and includes the area of Vermont and New Hampshire as described for hunting reciprocity. A person holding a New Hampshire hunting license that allows the taking of migratory waterfowl or a person holding a Vermont resident hunting license that allows the taking of migratory waterfowl may take migratory waterfowl and coots from the following designated area of the Inland Zone: The State of Vermont east of Rte. I-91 at the Massachusetts border, north on Rte. I-91 to Rte. 2, north on Rte. 2 to Rte. 102, north on Rte. 102 to Rte. 253, and north on Rte. 253 to the border with Canada and the area of New Hampshire west of Rte. 63 at the Massachusetts border, north on Rte. 63 to Rte. 12, north on Rte. 12 to Rte. 12-A, north on Rte. 12-A to Rte 10, north on Rte. 10 to Rte. 135, north on Rte. 135 to Rte. 3, north on Rte. 3 to the intersection with the Connecticut River.
Coastal Zone: That portion of the State east of a line beginning at the Maine-New Hampshire border in Rollinsford, then extending to Rte. 4 west to the city of Dover, south to the intersection of Rte. 108, south along Rte. 108 through Madbury, Durham, and Newmarket to the junction of Rte. 85 in Newfields, south to Rte. 101 in Exeter, east to Interstate 95 (New Hampshire Turnpike) in Hampton, and south to the Massachusetts border.
Coastal Zone: That portion of the State seaward of a line beginning at the New York State line in Raritan Bay and extending west along the New York State line to NJ 440 at Perth Amboy; west on NJ 440 to the Garden State Parkway; south on the Garden State Parkway to the shoreline at Cape May and continuing to the Delaware State line in Delaware Bay.
North Zone: That portion of the State west of the Coastal Zone and north of a line extending west from the Garden State Parkway on NJ 70 to the New Jersey Turnpike, north on the turnpike to U.S. 206, north on U.S. 206 to U.S. 1 at Trenton, west on U.S. 1 to the Pennsylvania State line in the Delaware River.
South Zone: That portion of the State not within the North Zone or the Coastal Zone.
Lake Champlain Zone: That area east and north of a continuous line extending along U.S. 11 from the New York-Canada International boundary south to NY 9B, south along NY 9B to U.S. 9, south along U.S. 9 to NY 22 south of Keesville; south along NY 22 to the west shore of South Bay, along and around the shoreline of South Bay to NY 22 on the east shore of South Bay; southeast along NY 22 to U.S. 4, northeast along U.S. 4 to the Vermont State line.
Long Island Zone: That area consisting of Nassau County, Suffolk County, that area of Westchester County southeast of I-95, and their tidal waters.
Western Zone: That area west of a line extending from Lake Ontario east along the north shore of the Salmon River to I-81, and south along I-81 to the Pennsylvania State line.
Northeastern Zone: That area north of a continuous line extending from Lake Ontario east along the north shore of the Salmon River to I-81, south along I-81 to NY 31, east along NY 31 to NY 13, north along NY 13 to NY 49, east along NY 49 to NY 365, east along NY 365 to NY 28, east along NY 28 to NY 29, east along NY 29 to NY 22, north along NY 22 to Washington County Route 153, east along CR 153 to the New York-Vermont boundary, exclusive of the Lake Champlain Zone.
Southeastern Zone: The remaining portion of New York.
Lake Erie Zone: The Lake Erie waters of Pennsylvania and a shoreline margin along Lake Erie from New York on the east to Ohio on the west extending 150 yards inland, but including all of Presque Isle Peninsula.
Northwest Zone: The area bounded on the north by the Lake Erie Zone and including all of Erie and Crawford Counties and those portions of Mercer and Venango Counties north of I-80.
North Zone: That portion of the State east of the Northwest Zone and north of a line extending east on I-80 to U.S. 220, Route 220 to I-180, I-180 to I-80, and I-80 to the Delaware River.
South Zone: The remaining portion of Pennsylvania.
Lake Champlain Zone: The U.S. portion of Lake Champlain and that area north and west of the line extending from the New York border along U.S. 4 to VT 22A at Fair Haven; VT 22A to U.S. 7 at Vergennes; U.S. 7 to VT 78 at Swanton; VT 78 to VT 36; VT 36 to Maquam Bay on Lake Champlain; along and around the shoreline of Maquam Bay and Hog Island to VT 78 at the West Swanton Bridge; VT 78 to VT 2 in Alburg; VT 2 to the Richelieu River in Alburg; along the east shore of the Richelieu River to the Canadian border.
Interior Zone: That portion of Vermont east of the Lake Champlain Zone and west of a line extending from the Massachusetts border at Interstate 91; north along Interstate 91 to U.S. 2; east along U.S. 2 to VT 102; north along VT 102 to VT 253; north along VT 253 to the Canadian border.
Connecticut River Zone: The remaining portion of Vermont east of the Interior Zone.
North Zone: That portion of the State north of a line extending west from the Indiana border along Peotone-Beecher Road to Illinois Route 50, south along Illinois Route 50 to Wilmington-Peotone Road, west along Wilmington-Peotone Road to Illinois Route 53, north along Illinois Route 53 to New River Road, northwest along New River Road to Interstate Highway 55, south along I-55 to Pine Bluff-Lorenzo Road, west along Pine Bluff-Lorenzo Road to Illinois Route 47, north along Illinois Route 47 to I-80, west along I-80 to I-39, south along I-39 to Illinois Route 18, west along Illinois Route 18 to Illinois Route 29, south along Illinois Route 29 to Illinois Route 17, west along Illinois Route 17 to the Mississippi River, and due south across the Mississippi River to the Iowa border.
Central Zone: That portion of the State south of the North Duck Zone line to a line extending west from the Indiana border along I-70 to Illinois Route 4, south along Illinois Route 4 to Illinois Route 161, west along Illinois Route 161 to Illinois Route 158, south and west along Illinois Route 158 to Illinois Route 159, south along Illinois Route 159 to Illinois Route 3, south along Illinois Route 3 to St. Leo's Road, south along St. Leo's Road to Modoc Road, west along Modoc Road to Modoc Ferry Road, southwest along Modoc Ferry Road to Levee Road, southeast along Levee Road to County Route 12 (Modoc Ferry entrance Road), south along County Route 12 to the Modoc Ferry route and southwest on the Modoc Ferry route across the Mississippi River to the Missouri border.
South Zone: That portion of the State south and east of a line extending west from the Indiana border along Interstate 70, south along U.S. Highway 45, to Illinois Route 13, west along Illinois Route 13 to Greenbriar Road, north on
South Central Zone: The remainder of the State between the south border of the Central Zone and the North border of the South Zone.
North Zone: That part of Indiana north of a line extending east from the Illinois border along State Road 18 to U.S. 31; north along U.S. 31 to U.S. 24; east along U.S. 24 to Huntington; southeast along U.S. 224; south along State Road 5; and east along State Road 124 to the Ohio border.
Central Zone: That part of Indiana south of the North Zone boundary and north of the South Zone boundary.
South Zone: That part of Indiana south of a line extending east from the Illinois border along U.S. 40; south along U.S. 41; east along State Road 58; south along State Road 37 to Bedford; and east along U.S. 50 to the Ohio border.
North Zone: That portion of Iowa north of a line beginning on the South Dakota-Iowa border at Interstate 29, southeast along Interstate 29 to State Highway 175, east along State Highway 175 to State Highway 37, southeast along State Highway 37 to State Highway 183, northeast along State Highway 183 to State Highway 141, east along State Highway 141 to U.S. Highway 30, and along U.S. Highway 30 to the Illinois border.
Missouri River Zone: That portion of Iowa west of a line beginning on the South Dakota-Iowa border at Interstate 29, southeast along Interstate 29 to State Highway 175, and west along State Highway 175 to the Iowa-Nebraska border.
South Zone: The remainder of Iowa.
West Zone: All counties west of and including Butler, Daviess, Ohio, Simpson, and Warren Counties.
East Zone: The remainder of Kentucky.
East Zone: That area of the State between the Mississippi State line and a line going south on Hwy 79 from the Arkansas border to Homer, then south on Hwy 9 to Arcadia, then south on Hwy 147 to Hodge, then south on Hwy 167 to Turkey Creek, then south on Hwy 13 to Eunice, then west on Hwy 190 to Kinder, then south on Hwy 165 to Iowa, then west on I-10 to its junction with Hwy 14 at Lake Charles, then south and east on Hwy 14 to its junction with Hwy 90 in New Iberia, then east on Hwy 90 to the Mississippi State line.
West Zone: That area between the Texas State line and a line going east on I-10 from the Texas border to Hwy 165 at Iowa, then north on Hwy 165 to Kinder, then east on Hwy 190 to Eunice, then north on Hwy 13 to Turkey Creek, then north on Hwy 167 to Hodge, then north on Hwy 147 to Arcadia, then north on Hwy 9 to Homer, then north on Hwy 79 to the Arkansas border.
Coastal Zone: Remainder of the State.
North Zone: The Upper Peninsula.
Middle Zone: That portion of the Lower Peninsula north of a line beginning at the Wisconsin State line in Lake Michigan due west of the mouth of Stony Creek in Oceana County; then due east to, and easterly and southerly along the south shore of Stony Creek to Scenic Drive, easterly and southerly along Scenic Drive to Stony Lake Road, easterly along Stony Lake and Garfield Roads to Michigan Highway 20, east along Michigan 20 to U.S. Highway 10 Business Route (BR) in the city of Midland, easterly along U.S. 10 BR to U.S. 10, easterly along U.S. 10 to Interstate Highway 75/U.S. Highway 23, northerly along I-75/U.S. 23 to the U.S. 23 exit at Standish, easterly along U.S. 23 to the centerline of the Au Gres River, then southerly along the centerline of the Au Gres River to Saginaw Bay, then on a line directly east 10 miles into Saginaw Bay, and from that point on a line directly northeast to the Canadian border.
South Zone: The remainder of Michigan.
North Duck Zone: That portion of the State north of a line extending east from the North Dakota State line along State Highway 210 to State Highway 23 and east to State Highway 39 and east to the Wisconsin State line at the Oliver Bridge.
South Duck Zone: The portion of the State south of a line extending east from the South Dakota State line along U.S. Highway 212 to Interstate 494 and east to Interstate 94 and east to the Wisconsin State line.
Central Duck Zone: The remainder of the State.
North Zone: That portion of Missouri north of a line running west from the Illinois border at Lock and Dam 25; west on Lincoln County Hwy. N to Mo. Hwy. 79; south on Mo. Hwy. 79 to Mo. Hwy. 47; west on Mo. Hwy. 47 to I-70; west on I-70 to the Kansas border.
Middle Zone: The remainder of Missouri not included in other zones.
South Zone: That portion of Missouri south of a line running west from the Illinois border on Mo. Hwy. 74 to Mo. Hwy. 25; south on Mo. Hwy. 25 to U.S. Hwy. 62; west on U.S. Hwy. 62 to Mo. Hwy. 53; north on Mo. Hwy. 53 to Mo. Hwy. 51; north on Mo. Hwy. 51 to U.S. Hwy. 60; west on U.S. Hwy. 60 to Mo. Hwy. 21; north on Mo. Hwy. 21 to Mo. Hwy. 72; west on Mo. Hwy. 72 to Mo. Hwy. 32; west on Mo. Hwy. 32 to U.S. Hwy. 65; north on U.S. Hwy. 65 to U.S. Hwy. 54; west on U.S. Hwy. 54 to U.S. Hwy. 71; south on U.S. Hwy. 71 to Jasper County Hwy. M (Base Line Blvd.); west on Jasper County Hwy. M (Base Line Blvd.) to CRD 40 (Base Line Blvd.); west on CRD 40 (Base Line Blvd.) to the Kansas border.
Lake Erie Marsh Zone: Includes all land and water within the boundaries of the area bordered by a line beginning at the intersection of Interstate 75 at the Ohio-Michigan State line and continuing south to Interstate 280, then south on I-280 to the Ohio Turnpike (I-80/I-90), then east on the Ohio Turnpike to the Erie-Lorain county line, then north to Lake Erie, then following the Lake Erie shoreline at a distance of 200 yards offshore, then following the shoreline west toward and around the northern tip of Cedar Point Amusement Park, then continuing from the westernmost point of Cedar Point toward the southernmost tip of the sand bar at the mouth of Sandusky Bay and out into Lake Erie at a distance of 200 yards offshore continuing parallel to the Lake Erie shoreline north and west toward the northernmost tip of Cedar Point National Wildlife Refuge, then following a direct line toward the southernmost tip of Wood Tick Peninsula in Michigan to a point that intersects the Ohio-Michigan State line, then following the State line back to the point of the beginning.
North Zone: That portion of the State, excluding the Lake Erie Marsh Zone, north of a line extending east from the
South Zone: The remainder of Ohio not included in the Lake Erie Marsh Zone or the North Zone.
Reelfoot Zone: All or portions of Lake and Obion Counties.
Remainder of State: That portion of Tennessee outside of the Reelfoot Zone.
North Zone: That portion of the State north of a line extending east from the Minnesota State line along U.S. Highway 10 into Portage County to County Highway HH, east on County Highway HH to State Highway 66 and then east on State Highway 66 to U.S. Highway 10, continuing east on U.S. Highway 10 to U.S. Highway 41, then north on U.S. Highway 41 to the Michigan State line.
Mississippi River Zone: That area encompassed by a line beginning at the intersection of the Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway and the Illinois State line in Grant County and extending northerly along the Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway to the city limit of Prescott in Pierce County, then west along the Prescott city limit to the Minnesota State line.
South Zone: The remainder of Wisconsin.
Special Teal Season Area: Lake and Chaffee Counties and that portion of the State east of Interstate Highway 25.
Northeast Zone: All areas east of Interstate 25 and north of Interstate 70.
Southeast Zone: All areas east of Interstate 25 and south of Interstate 70, and all of El Paso, Pueblo, Huerfano, and Las Animas Counties.
Mountain/Foothills Zone: All areas west of Interstate 25 and east of the Continental Divide, except El Paso, Pueblo, Huerfano, and Las Animas Counties.
High Plains Zone: That portion of the State west of U.S. 283.
Low Plains Early Zone: That part of Kansas bounded by a line from the federal highway US-283 and state highway US-96 junction, then east on federal highway US-96 to its junction with federal highway US-183, then north on federal highway US-183 to its junction with federal highway US-24, then east on federal highway US-24 to its junction with federal highway US-281, then north on federal highway US-281 to its junction with federal highway US-36, then east on federal highway US-36 to its junction with state highway K-199, then south on state highway K-199 to its junction with Republic County 30th Road, then south on Republic County 30th Road to its junction with state highway K-148, then east on state highway K-148 to its junction with Republic County 50th Road, then south on Republic County 50th Road to its junction with Cloud County 40th Road, then south on Cloud County 40th Road to its junction with state highway K-9, then west on state highway K-9 to its junction with federal highway US-24, then west on federal highway US-24 to its junction with federal highway US-181, then south on federal highway US-181 to its junction with state highway K-18, then west on state highway K-18 to its junction with federal highway US-281, then south on federal highway US-281 to its junction with state highway K-4, then east on state highway K-4 to its junction with interstate highway I-135, then south on interstate highway I-135 to its junction with state highway K-61, then southwest on state highway K-61 to its junction with McPherson County 14th Avenue, then south on McPherson County 14th Avenue to its junction with McPherson County Arapaho Rd, then west on McPherson County Arapaho Rd to its junction with state highway K-61, then southwest on state highway K-61 to its junction with state highway K-96, then northwest on state highway K-96 to its junction with federal highway US-56, then southwest on federal highway US-56 to its junction with state highway K-19, then east on state highway K-19 to its junction with federal highway US-281, then south on federal highway US-281 to its junction with federal highway US-54, then west on federal highway US-54 to its junction with federal highway US-183, then north on federal highway US-183 to its junction with federal highway US-56, then southwest on federal highway US-56 to its junction with North Main Street in Spearville, then south on North Main Street to Davis Street, then east on Davis Street to Ford County Road 126 (South Stafford Street), then south on Ford County Road 126 to Garnett Road, then east on Garnett Road to Ford County Road 126, then south on Ford County Road 126 to Ford Spearville Road, then west on Ford Spearville Road to its junction with federal highway US-400, then northwest on federal highway US-400 to its junction with federal highway US-283, and then north on federal highway US-283 to its junction with federal highway US-96.
Low Plains Late Zone: That part of Kansas bounded by a line from the federal highway US-283 and federal highway US-96 junction, then north on federal highway US-283 to the Kansas-Nebraska state line, then east along the Kansas-Nebraska state line to its junction with the Kansas-Missouri state line, then southeast along the Kansas-Missouri state line to its junction with state highway K-68, then west on state highway K-68 to its junction with interstate highway I-35, then southwest on interstate highway I-35 to its junction with Butler County NE 150th Street, then west on Butler County NE 150th Street to its junction with federal highway US-77, then south on federal highway US-77 to its junction with the Kansas-Oklahoma state line, then west along the Kansas-Oklahoma state line to its junction with federal highway US-283, then north on federal highway US-283 to its junction with federal highway US-400, then east on federal highway US-400 to its junction with Ford Spearville Road, then east on Ford Spearville Road to Ford County Road 126 (South Stafford Street), then north on Ford County Road 126 to Garnett Road, then west on Garnett Road to Ford County Road 126, then north on Ford County Road 126 to Davis Street, then west on Davis Street to North Main Street, then north on North Main Street to its junction with federal highway US-56, then east on federal highway US-56 to its junction with federal highway US-183, then south on federal highway US-183 to its junction with federal highway US-54, then east on federal highway US-54 to its junction with federal highway US-281, then north on federal
Southeast Zone: That part of Kansas bounded by a line from the Missouri-Kansas State line west on K-68 to its junction with I-35, then southwest on I-35 to its junction with Butler County, NE 150th Street, then west on NE 150th Street to its junction with federal highway US-77, then south on federal highway US-77 to the Oklahoma-Kansas State line, then east along the Kansas-Oklahoma State line to its junction with the Kansas-Missouri State line, then north along the Kansas-Missouri State line to its junction with K-68.
Zone 1: The Counties of Blaine, Carter, Daniels, Dawson, Fallon, Fergus, Garfield, Golden Valley, Judith Basin, McCone, Musselshell, Petroleum, Phillips, Powder River, Richland, Roosevelt, Sheridan, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Valley, Wheatland, and Wibaux.
Zone 2: The Counties of Big Horn, Carbon, Custer, Prairie, Rosebud, Treasure, and Yellowstone.
Special Teal Season Area (south): That portion of the State south of a line beginning at the Wyoming State line; east along U.S. 26 to Nebraska Highway L62A east to U.S. 385; south to U.S. 26; east to NE 92; east along NE 92 to NE 61; south along NE 61 to U.S. 30; east along U.S. 30 to the Iowa border.
Special Teal Season Area (north): The remainder of the State.
High Plains: That portion of Nebraska lying west of a line beginning at the South Dakota-Nebraska border on U.S. Hwy. 183; south on U.S. Hwy. 183 to U.S. Hwy. 20; west on U.S. Hwy. 20 to NE Hwy. 7; south on NE Hwy. 7 to NE Hwy. 91; southwest on NE Hwy. 91 to NE Hwy. 2; southeast on NE Hwy. 2 to NE Hwy. 92; west on NE Hwy. 92 to NE Hwy. 40; south on NE Hwy. 40 to NE Hwy. 47; south on NE Hwy. 47 to NE Hwy. 23; east on NE Hwy. 23 to U.S. Hwy. 283; and south on U.S. Hwy. 283 to the Kansas-Nebraska border.
Zone 1: Area bounded by designated Federal and State highways and political boundaries beginning at the South Dakota-Nebraska border west of NE Hwy. 26E Spur and north of NE Hwy. 12; those portions of Dixon, Cedar, and Knox Counties north of NE Hwy. 12; that portion of Keya Paha County east of U.S. Hwy. 183; and all of Boyd County. Both banks of the Niobrara River in Keya Paha and Boyd counties east of U.S. Hwy. 183 shall be included in Zone 1.
Zone 2: The area south of Zone 1 and north of Zone 3.
Zone 3: Area bounded by designated Federal and State highways, County Roads, and political boundaries beginning at the Wyoming-Nebraska border at the intersection of the Interstate Canal; east along northern borders of Scotts Bluff and Morrill Counties to Broadwater Road; south to Morrill County Rd 94; east to County Rd 135; south to County Rd 88; southeast to County Rd 151; south to County Rd 80; east to County Rd 161; south to County Rd 76; east to County Rd 165; south to County Rd 167; south to U.S. Hwy 26; east to County Rd 171; north to County Rd 68; east to County Rd 183; south to County Rd 64; east to County Rd 189; north to County Rd 70; east to County Rd 201; south to County Rd 60A; east to County Rd 203; south to County Rd 52; east to Keith County Line; east along the northern boundaries of Keith and Lincoln Counties to NE Hwy 97; south to U.S. Hwy 83; south to E Hall School Rd; east to N Airport Road; south to U.S. Hwy 30; east to NE Hwy 47; north to Dawson County Rd 769; east to County Rd 423; south to County Rd 766; east to County Rd 428; south to County Rd 763; east to NE Hwy 21 (Adams Street); south to County Rd 761; east to the Dawson County Canal; south and east along the Dawson County Canal to County Rd 444; south to U.S. Hwy 30; east to U.S. Hwy 183; north to Buffalo County Rd 100; east to 46th Avenue; north to NE Hwy 40; south and east to NE Hwy 10; north to Buffalo County Rd 220 and Hall County Husker Hwy; east to Hall County Rd 70; north to NE Hwy 2; east to U.S. Hwy 281; north to Chapman Rd; east to 7th Rd; south to U.S. Hwy 30; east to Merrick County Rd 13; north to County Rd O; east to NE Hwy 14; north to NE Hwy 52; west and north to NE Hwy 91; west to U.S. Hwy 281; south to NE Hwy 22; west to NE Hwy 11; northwest to NE Hwy 91; west to U.S. Hwy 183; south to Round Valley Rd; west to Sargent River Rd; west to Drive 443; north to Sargent Rd; west to NE Hwy S21A; west to NE Hwy 2; west and north to NE Hwy 91; north and east to North Loup Spur Rd; north to North Loup River Rd; east to Pleasant Valley/Worth Rd; east to Loup County Line; north to Loup-Brown county line; east along northern boundaries of Loup and Garfield Counties to Cedar River Rd; south to NE Hwy 70; east to U.S. Hwy 281; north to NE Hwy 70; east to NE Hwy 14; south to NE Hwy 39; southeast to NE Hwy 22; east to U.S. Hwy 81; southeast to U.S. Hwy 30; east to U.S. Hwy 75; north to the Washington County line; east to the Iowa-Nebraska border; south to the Missouri-Nebraska border; south to Kansas-Nebraska border; west along Kansas-Nebraska border to Colorado-Nebraska border; north and west to Wyoming-Nebraska border; north to intersection of Interstate Canal; and excluding that area in Zone 4.
Zone 4: Area encompassed by designated Federal and State highways and County Roads beginning at the intersection of NE Hwy 8 and U.S. Hwy 75; north to U.S. Hwy 136; east to the intersection of U.S. Hwy 136 and the Steamboat Trace (Trace); north along the Trace to the intersection with Federal
North Zone: That portion of the State north of I-40 and U.S. 54.
South Zone: The remainder of New Mexico.
High Plains Unit: That portion of the State south and west of a line from the South Dakota State line along U.S. 83 and I-94 to ND 41, north to U.S. 2, west to the Williams-Divide County line, then north along the County line to the Canadian border.
Low Plains Unit: The remainder of North Dakota.
High Plains Zone: The Counties of Beaver, Cimarron, and Texas.
Low Plains Zone 1: That portion of the State east of the High Plains Zone and north of a line extending east from the Texas State line along OK 33 to OK 47, east along OK 47 to U.S. 183, south along U.S. 183 to I-40, east along I-40 to U.S. 177, north along U.S. 177 to OK 33, east along OK 33 to OK 18, north along OK 18 to OK 51, west along OK 51 to I-35, north along I-35 to U.S. 412, west along U.S. 412 to OK 132, then north along OK 132 to the Kansas State line.
Low Plains Zone 2: The remainder of Oklahoma.
High Plains Zone: That portion of the State west of a line beginning at the North Dakota State line and extending south along U.S. 83 to U.S. 14, east on U.S. 14 to Blunt, south on the Blunt-Canning Rd to SD 34, east and south on SD 34 to SD 50 at Lee's Corner, south on SD 50 to I-90, east on I-90 to SD 50, south on SD 50 to SD 44, west on SD 44 across the Platte-Winner bridge to SD 47, south on SD 47 to U.S. 18, east on U.S. 18 to SD 47, south on SD 47 to the Nebraska State line.
North Zone: That portion of northeastern South Dakota east of the High Plains Unit and north of a line extending east along U.S. 212 to the Minnesota State line.
South Zone: That portion of Gregory County east of SD 47 and south of SD 44; Charles Mix County south of SD 44 to the Douglas County line; south on SD 50 to Geddes; east on the Geddes Highway to U.S. 281; south on U.S. 281 and U.S. 18 to SD 50; south and east on SD 50 to the Bon Homme County line; the Counties of Bon Homme, Yankton, and Clay south of SD 50; and Union County south and west of SD 50 and I-29.
Middle Zone: The remainder of South Dakota.
High Plains Zone: That portion of the State west of a line extending south from the Oklahoma State line along U.S. 183 to Vernon, south along U.S. 283 to Albany, south along TX 6 to TX 351 to Abilene, south along U.S. 277 to Del Rio, then south along the Del Rio International Toll Bridge access road to the Mexico border.
Low Plains North Zone: That portion of northeastern Texas east of the High Plains Zone and north of a line beginning at the International Toll Bridge south of Del Rio, then extending east on U.S. 90 to San Antonio, then continuing east on I-10 to the Louisiana State line at Orange, Texas.
Low Plains South Zone: The remainder of Texas.
Zone C1: Big Horn, Converse, Goshen, Hot Springs, Natrona, Park, Platte, and Washakie Counties; and Fremont County excluding the portions west or south of the Continental Divide.
Zone C2: Campbell, Crook, Johnson, Niobrara, Sheridan, and Weston Counties.
Zone C3: Albany and Laramie Counties; and that portion of Carbon County east of the Continental Divide.
North Zone: Game Management Units 1-5, those portions of Game Management Units 6 and 8 within Coconino County, and Game Management Units 7, 9, and 12A.
South Zone: Those portions of Game Management Units 6 and 8 in Yavapai County, and Game Management Units 10 and 12B-45.
Northeastern Zone: In that portion of California lying east and north of a line beginning at the intersection of Interstate 5 with the California-Oregon line; south along Interstate 5 to its junction with Walters Lane south of the town of Yreka; west along Walters Lane to its junction with Easy Street; south along Easy Street to the junction with Old Highway 99; south along Old Highway 99 to the point of intersection with Interstate 5 north of the town of Weed; south along Interstate 5 to its junction with Highway 89; east and south along Highway 89 to Main Street Greenville; north and east to its junction with North Valley Road; south to its junction of Diamond Mountain Road; north and east to its junction with North Arm Road; south and west to the junction of North Valley Road; south to the junction with Arlington Road (A22); west to the junction of Highway 89; south and west to the junction of Highway 70; east on Highway 70 to Highway 395; south and east on Highway 395 to the point of intersection with the California-Nevada State line; north along the California-Nevada State line to the junction of the California-Nevada-Oregon State lines; west along the California-Oregon State line to the point of origin.
Colorado River Zone: Those portions of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial Counties east of a line extending from the Nevada State line south along U.S. 95 to Vidal Junction; south on a road known as “Aqueduct Road” in San Bernardino County through the town of Rice to the San Bernardino-Riverside County line; south
Southern Zone: That portion of southern California (but excluding the Colorado River Zone) south and east of a line extending from the Pacific Ocean east along the Santa Maria River to CA 166 near the City of Santa Maria; east on CA 166 to CA 99; south on CA 99 to the crest of the Tehachapi Mountains at Tejon Pass; east and north along the crest of the Tehachapi Mountains to CA 178 at Walker Pass; east on CA 178 to U.S. 395 at the town of Inyokern; south on U.S. 395 to CA 58; east on CA 58 to I-15; east on I-15 to CA 127; north on CA 127 to the Nevada State line.
Southern San Joaquin Valley Zone: All of Kings and Tulare Counties and that portion of Kern County north of the Southern Zone.
Balance of State Zone: The remainder of California not included in the Northeastern, Colorado River, Southern, and the Southern San Joaquin Valley Zones.
Eastern Zone: Routt, Grand, Summit, Eagle, and Pitkin counties, those portions of Saguache, San Juan, Hinsdale, and Mineral in the Pacific Flyway (
Western Zone: The remainder of the Pacific Flyway portion of Colorado not included in the Eastern Zone.
Zone 1: All lands and waters within the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, including private in-holdings; Bannock County; Bingham County, except that portion within the Blackfoot Reservoir drainage; Caribou County within the Fort Hall Indian Reservation; and Power County east of State Highway 37 and State Highway 39.
Zone 2: Adams, Bear Lake, Benewah, Blaine, Bonner, Bonneville, Boundary, Butte, Camas, Clark, Clearwater, Custer, Franklin, Fremont, Idaho, Jefferson, Kootenai, Latah, Lemhi, Lewis, Madison, Nez Perce, Oneida, Shoshone, Teton, and Valley Counties; Bingham County within the Blackfoot Reservoir drainage; Caribou County, except the Fort Hall Indian Reservation; and Power County west of State Highway 37 and State Highway 39.
Zone 3: Ada, Boise, Canyon, Cassia, Elmore, Gem, Gooding, Jerome, Lincoln, Minidoka, Owyhee, Payette, Twin Falls, and Washington Counties.
Northeast Zone: Elko and White Pine Counties.
Northwest Zone: Carson City, Churchill, Douglas, Esmeralda, Eureka, Humboldt, Lander, Lyon, Mineral, Nye, Pershing, Storey, and Washoe Counties.
South Zone: Clark and Lincoln Counties.
Moapa Valley Special Management Area: That portion of Clark County including the Moapa Valley to the confluence of the Muddy and Virgin Rivers.
Zone 1: Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Coos, Curry, Douglas, Gilliam, Hood River, Jackson, Josephine, Lane, Lincoln, Linn, Marion, Morrow, Multnomah, Polk, Sherman, Tillamook, Umatilla, Wasco, Washington, and Yamhill, Counties.
Zone 2: The remainder of Oregon not included in Zone 1.
Zone 1: Box Elder, Cache, Daggett, Davis, Duchesne, Morgan, Rich, Salt Lake, Summit, Uintah, Utah, Wasatch, and Weber Counties, and that part of Toole County north of I-80.
Zone 2: The remainder of Utah not included in Zone 1.
East Zone: All areas east of the Pacific Crest Trail and east of the Big White Salmon River in Klickitat County.
West Zone: The remainder of Washington not included in the East Zone.
Snake River Zone: Beginning at the south boundary of Yellowstone National Park and the Continental Divide; south along the Continental Divide to Union Pass and the Union Pass Road (U.S.F.S. Road 600); west and south along the Union Pass Road to U.S.F.S. Road 605; south along U.S.F.S. Road 605 to the Bridger-Teton National Forest boundary; along the national forest boundary to the Idaho State line; north along the Idaho State line to the south boundary of Yellowstone National Park; east along the Yellowstone National Park boundary to the Continental Divide.
Balance of State Zone: The remainder of the Pacific Flyway portion of Wyoming not included in the Snake River Zone.
Early Canada Goose Seasons:
South Zone: Same as for ducks.
North Zone: Same as for ducks.
Regular Seasons:
AP Unit: Litchfield County and the portion of Hartford County west of a line beginning at the Massachusetts border in Suffield and extending south along Route 159 to its intersection with Route 91 in Hartford, and then extending south along Route 91 to its intersection with the Hartford-Middlesex County line.
Atlantic Flyway Resident Population (AFRP) Unit: Starting at the intersection of I-95 and the Quinnipiac River, north on the Quinnipiac River to its intersection with I-91, north on I-91 to I-691, west on I-691 to the Hartford County line, and encompassing the rest of New Haven County and Fairfield County in its entirety.
NAP H—Unit: All of the rest of the State not included in the AP or AFRP descriptions above.
South Zone: Same as for ducks.
Same zones as for ducks.
Eastern Unit: Calvert, Caroline, Cecil, Dorchester, Harford, Kent, Queen Anne's, St. Mary's, Somerset, Talbot, Wicomico, and Worcester Counties; and that part of Anne Arundel County east of Interstate 895, Interstate 97, and Route 3; that part of Prince George's County east of Route 3 and Route 301; and that part of Charles County east of Route 301 to the Virginia State line.
Western Unit: Allegany, Baltimore, Carroll, Frederick, Garrett, Howard, Montgomery, and Washington Counties and that part of Anne Arundel County west of Interstate 895, Interstate 97, and Route 3; that part of Prince George's County west of Route 3 and Route 301;
Resident Population (RP) Zone: Allegany, Frederick, Garrett, Montgomery, and Washington Counties; that portion of Prince George's County west of Route 3 and Route 301; that portion of Charles County west of Route 301 to the Virginia State line; and that portion of Carroll County west of Route 31 to the intersection of Route 97, and west of Route 97 to the Pennsylvania line.
AP Zone: Remainder of the State.
NAP Zone: Central and Coastal Zones (see duck zones).
AP Zone: The Western Zone (see duck zones).
Special Late Season Area: The Central Zone and that portion of the Coastal Zone (see duck zones) that lies north of the Cape Cod Canal, north to the New Hampshire line.
Same zones as for ducks.
AP Zone: North and South Zones (see duck zones).
RP Zone: The Coastal Zone (see duck zones).
Special Late Season Area: In northern New Jersey, that portion of the State within a continuous line that runs east along the New York State boundary line to the Hudson River; then south along the New York State boundary to its intersection with Route 440 at Perth Amboy; then west on Route 440 to its intersection with Route 287; then west along Route 287 to its intersection with Route 206 in Bedminster (Exit 18); then north along Route 206 to its intersection with Route 94: Then west along Route 94 to the tollbridge in Columbia; then north along the Pennsylvania State boundary in the Delaware River to the beginning point. In southern New Jersey, that portion of the State within a continuous line that runs west from the Atlantic Ocean at Ship Bottom along Route 72 to Route 70; then west along Route 70 to Route 206; then south along Route 206 to Route 536; then west along Route 536 to Route 322; then west along Route 322 to Route 55; then south along Route 55 to Route 553 (Buck Road); then south along Route 553 to Route 40; then east along Route 40 to route 55; then south along Route 55 to Route 552 (Sherman Avenue); then west along Route 552 to Carmel Road; then south along Carmel Road to Route 49; then east along Route 49 to Route 555; then south along Route 555 to Route 553; then east along Route 553 to Route 649; then north along Route 649 to Route 670; then east along Route 670 to Route 47; then north along Route 47 to Route 548; then east along Route 548 to Route 49; then east along Route 49 to Route 50; then south along Route 50 to Route 9; then south along Route 9 to Route 625 (Sea Isle City Boulevard); then east along Route 625 to the Atlantic Ocean; then north to the beginning point.
Lake Champlain Goose Area: The same as the Lake Champlain Waterfowl Hunting Zone, which is that area of New York State lying east and north of a continuous line extending along Route 11 from the New York-Canada International boundary south to Route 9B, south along Route 9B to Route 9, south along Route 9 to Route 22 south of Keeseville, south along Route 22 to the west shore of South Bay along and around the shoreline of South Bay to Route 22 on the east shore of South Bay, southeast along Route 22 to Route 4, northeast along Route 4 to the New York-Vermont boundary.
Northeast Goose Area: The same as the Northeastern Waterfowl Hunting Zone, which is that area of New York State lying north of a continuous line extending from Lake Ontario east along the north shore of the Salmon River to Interstate 81, south along Interstate Route 81 to Route 31, east along Route 31 to Route 13, north along Route 13 to Route 49, east along Route 49 to Route 365, east along Route 365 to Route 28, east along Route 28 to Route 29, east along Route 29 to Route 22 at Greenwich Junction, north along Route 22 to Washington County Route 153, east along CR 153 to the New York-Vermont boundary, exclusive of the Lake Champlain Zone.
East Central Goose Area: That area of New York State lying inside of a continuous line extending from Interstate Route 81 in Cicero, east along Route 31 to Route 13, north along Route 13 to Route 49, east along Route 49 to Route 365, east along Route 365 to Route 28, east along Route 28 to Route 29, east along Route 29 to Route 147 at Kimball Corners, south along Route 147 to Schenectady County Route 40 (West Glenville Road), west along Route 40 to Touareuna Road, south along Touareuna Road to Schenectady County Route 59, south along Route 59 to State Route 5, east along Route 5 to the Lock 9 bridge, southwest along the Lock 9 bridge to Route 5S, southeast along Route 5S to Schenectady County Route 58, southwest along Route 58 to the NYS Thruway, south along the Thruway to Route 7, southwest along Route 7 to Schenectady County Route 103, south along Route 103 to Route 406, east along Route 406 to Schenectady County Route 99 (Windy Hill Road), south along Route 99 to Dunnsville Road, south along Dunnsville Road to Route 397, southwest along Route 397 to Route 146 at Altamont, west along Route 146 to Albany County Route 252, northwest along Route 252 to Schenectady County Route 131, north along Route 131 to Route 7, west along Route 7 to Route 10 at Richmondville, south on Route 10 to Route 23 at Stamford, west along Route 23 to Route 7 in Oneonta, southwest along Route 7 to Route 79 to Interstate Route 88 near Harpursville, west along Route 88 to Interstate Route 81, north along Route 81 to the point of beginning.
West Central Goose Area: That area of New York State lying within a continuous line beginning at the point where the northerly extension of Route 269 (County Line Road on the Niagara-Orleans County boundary) meets the International boundary with Canada, south to the shore of Lake Ontario at the eastern boundary of Golden Hill State Park, south along the extension of Route 269 and Route 269 to Route 104 at Jeddo, west along Route 104 to Niagara County Route 271, south along Route 271 to Route 31E at Middleport, south along Route 31E to Route 31, west along Route 31 to Griswold Street, south along Griswold Street to Ditch Road, south along Ditch Road to Foot Road, south along Foot Road to the north bank of Tonawanda Creek, west along the north bank of Tonawanda Creek to Route 93, south along Route 93 to Route 5, east along Route 5 to Crittenden-Murrays Corners Road, south on Crittenden-Murrays Corners Road to the NYS Thruway, east along the Thruway 90 to Route 98 (at Thruway Exit 48) in Batavia, south along Route 98 to Route 20, east along Route 20 to Route 19 in Pavilion Center, south along Route 19 to Route 63, southeast along Route 63 to Route 246, south along Route 246 to Route 39 in Perry, northeast along Route 39 to Route 20A, northeast along Route 20A to Route 20, east along Route 20 to Route 364 (near Canandaigua), south and east along Route 364 to Yates County Route 18 (Italy Valley Road), southwest along Route 18 to Yates County Route 34, east along Route 34 to Yates County Route 32, south along Route 32 to Steuben County Route 122, south along Route 122 to Route 53, south along Route 53 to Steuben County Route 74, east along Route 74 to Route 54A (near Pulteney), south along Route 54A to Steuben County Route 87, east
Hudson Valley Goose Area: That area of New York State lying within a continuous line extending from Route 4 at the New York-Vermont boundary, west and south along Route 4 to Route 149 at Fort Ann, west on Route 149 to Route 9, south along Route 9 to Interstate Route 87 (at Exit 20 in Glens Falls), south along Route 87 to Route 29, west along Route 29 to Route 147 at Kimball Corners, south along Route 147 to Schenectady County Route 40 (West Glenville Road), west along Route 40 to Touareuna Road, south along Touareuna Road to Schenectady County Route 59, south along Route 59 to State Route 5, east along Route 5 to the Lock 9 bridge, southwest along the Lock 9 bridge to Route 5S, southeast along Route 5S to Schenectady County Route 58, southwest along Route 58 to the NYS Thruway, south along the Thruway to Route 7, southwest along Route 7 to Schenectady County Route 103, south along Route 103 to Route 406, east along Route 406 to Schenectady County Route 99 (Windy Hill Road), south along Route 99 to Dunnsville Road, south along Dunnsville Road to Route 397, southwest along Route 397 to Route 146 at Altamont, southeast along Route 146 to Main Street in Altamont, west along Main Street to Route 156, southeast along Route 156 to Albany County Route 307, southeast along Route 307 to Route 85A, southwest along Route 85A to Route 85, south along Route 85 to Route 443, southeast along Route 443 to Albany County Route 301 at Clarksville, southeast along Route 301 to Route 32, south along Route 32 to Route 23 at Cairo, west along Route 23 to Joseph Chadderdon Road, southeast along Joseph Chadderdon Road to Hearts Content Road (Greene County Route 31), southeast along Route 31 to Route 32, south along Route 32 to Greene County Route 23A, east along Route 23A to Interstate Route 87 (the NYS Thruway), south along Route 87 to Route 28 (Exit 19) near Kingston, northwest on Route 28 to Route 209, southwest on Route 209 to the New York-Pennsylvania boundary, southeast along the New York-Pennsylvania boundary to the New York-New Jersey boundary, southeast along the New York-New Jersey boundary to Route 210 near Greenwood Lake, northeast along Route 210 to Orange County Route 5, northeast along Orange County Route 5 to Route 105 in the Village of Monroe, east and north along Route 105 to Route 32, northeast along Route 32 to Orange County Route 107 (Quaker Avenue), east along Route 107 to Route 9W, north along Route 9W to the south bank of Moodna Creek, southeast along the south bank of Moodna Creek to the New Windsor-Cornwall town boundary, northeast along the New Windsor-Cornwall town boundary to the Orange-Dutchess County boundary (middle of the Hudson River), north along the county boundary to Interstate Route 84, east along Route 84 to the Dutchess-Putnam County boundary, east along the county boundary to the New York-Connecticut boundary, north along the New York-Connecticut boundary to the New York-Massachusetts boundary, north along the New York-Massachusetts boundary to the New York-Vermont boundary, north to the point of beginning.
Eastern Long Island Goose Area (NAP High Harvest Area): That area of Suffolk County lying east of a continuous line extending due south from the New York-Connecticut boundary to the northernmost end of Roanoke Avenue in the Town of Riverhead; then south on Roanoke Avenue (which becomes County Route 73) to State Route 25; then west on Route 25 to Peconic Avenue; then south on Peconic Avenue to County Route (CR) 104 (Riverleigh Avenue); then south on CR 104 to CR 31 (Old Riverhead Road); then south on CR 31 to Oak Street; then south on Oak Street to Potunk Lane; then west on Stevens Lane; then south on Jessup Avenue (in Westhampton Beach) to Dune Road (CR 89); then due south to international waters.
Western Long Island Goose Area (RP Area): That area of Westchester County and its tidal waters southeast of Interstate Route 95 and that area of Nassau and Suffolk Counties lying west of a continuous line extending due south from the New York-Connecticut boundary to the northernmost end of Sound Road (just east of Wading River Marsh); then south on Sound Road to North Country Road; then west on North Country Road to Randall Road; then south on Randall Road to Route 25A, then west on Route 25A to the Sunken Meadow State Parkway; then south on the Sunken Meadow Parkway to the Sagtikos State Parkway; then south on the Sagtikos Parkway to the Robert Moses State Parkway; then south on the Robert Moses Parkway to its southernmost end; then due south to international waters.
Central Long Island Goose Area (NAP Low Harvest Area): That area of Suffolk County lying between the Western and Eastern Long Island Goose Areas, as defined above.
South Goose Area: The remainder of New York State, excluding New York City.
Special Late Canada Goose Area: That area of the Central Long Island Goose Area lying north of State Route 25A and west of a continuous line extending northward from State Route 25A along Randall Road (near Shoreham) to North Country Road, then east to Sound Road and then north to Long Island Sound and then due north to the New York-Connecticut boundary.
SJBP Hunt Zone: Includes the following Counties or portions of Counties: Anson, Cabarrus, Chatham, Davidson, Durham, Halifax (that portion east of NC 903), Montgomery (that portion west of NC 109), Northampton, Richmond (that portion south of NC 73 and west of U.S. 220 and north of U.S. 74), Rowan, Stanly, Union, and Wake.
RP Hunt Zone: Includes the following Counties or portions of Counties: Alamance, Alleghany, Alexander, Ashe, Avery, Beaufort, Bertie (that portion south and west of a line formed by NC 45 at the Washington Co. line to U.S. 17 in Midway, U.S. 17 in Midway to U.S. 13 in Windsor, U.S. 13 in Windsor to the Hertford Co. line), Bladen, Brunswick, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Carteret, Caswell, Catawba, Cherokee, Clay, Cleveland, Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Davie, Duplin, Edgecombe, Forsyth, Franklin, Gaston, Gates, Graham, Granville, Greene, Guilford, Halifax (that portion west of NC 903), Harnett, Haywood, Henderson, Hertford, Hoke, Iredell, Jackson, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir, Lincoln, McDowell, Macon, Madison, Martin, Mecklenburg, Mitchell, Montgomery (that portion that is east of NC 109), Moore, Nash, New Hanover, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico, Pender, Person, Pitt, Polk, Randolph, Richmond (all of the county with exception of that portion that is south of NC 73 and west of U.S. 220 and north of U.S. 74), Robeson, Rockingham,
Northeast Hunt Unit: Includes the following Counties or portions of Counties: Bertie (that portion north and east of a line formed by NC 45 at the Washington County line to U.S. 17 in Midway, U.S. 17 in Midway to U.S. 13 in Windsor, U.S. 13 in Windsor to the Hertford Co. line), Camden, Chowan, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington.
Resident Canada Goose Zone: All of Pennsylvania except for SJBP Zone and the area east of route SR 97 from the Maryland State Line to the intersection of SR 194, east of SR 194 to intersection of U.S. Route 30, south of U.S. Route 30 to SR 441, east of SR 441 to SR 743, east of SR 743 to intersection of I-81, east of I-81 to intersection of I-80, and south of I-80 to the New Jersey State line.
SJBP Zone: The area north of I-80 and west of I-79 including in the city of Erie west of Bay Front Parkway to and including the Lake Erie Duck zone (Lake Erie, Presque Isle, and the area within 150 yards of the Lake Erie Shoreline).
AP Zone: The area east of route SR 97 from Maryland State Line to the intersection of SR 194, east of SR 194 to intersection of U.S. Route 30, south of U.S. Route 30 to SR 441, east of SR 441 to SR 743, east of SR 743 to intersection of I-81, east of I-81 to intersection of I-80, south of I-80 to New Jersey State line.
Special Area for Canada Geese: Kent and Providence Counties and portions of the towns of Exeter and North Kingston within Washington County (see State regulations for detailed descriptions).
Canada Goose Area: Statewide except for the following area:
East of U.S. 301: That portion of Clarendon County bounded to the North by S-14-25, to the East by Hwy 260, and to the South by the markers delineating the channel of the Santee River.
West of U.S. 301: That portion of Clarendon County bounded on the North by S-14-26 extending southward to that portion of Orangeburg County bordered by Hwy 6.
Same zones as for ducks.
AP Zone: The area east and south of the following line—the Stafford County line from the Potomac River west to Interstate 95 at Fredericksburg, then south along Interstate 95 to Petersburg, then Route 460 (SE) to City of Suffolk, then south along Route 32 to the North Carolina line.
SJBP Zone: The area to the west of the AP Zone boundary and east of the following line: The “Blue Ridge” (mountain spine) at the West Virginia-Virginia Border (Loudoun County-Clarke County line) south to Interstate 64 (the Blue Ridge line follows county borders along the western edge of Loudoun-Fauquier-Rappahannock-Madison-Greene-Albemarle and into Nelson Counties), then east along Interstate Rt. 64 to Route 15, then south along Rt. 15 to the North Carolina line.
RP Zone: The remainder of the State west of the SJBP Zone.
Northwest Zone: Baxter, Benton, Boone, Carroll, Conway, Crawford, Faulkner, Franklin, Johnson, Logan, Madison, Marion, Newton, Perry, Pope, Pulaski, Searcy, Sebastian, Scott, Van Buren, Washington, and Yell Counties.
North September Canada Goose Zone: That portion of the State north of a line extending west from the Indiana border along Interstate 80 to I-39, south along I-39 to Illinois Route 18, west along Illinois Route 18 to Illinois Route 29, south along Illinois Route 29 to Illinois Route 17, west along Illinois Route 17 to the Mississippi River, and due south across the Mississippi River to the Iowa border.
Central September Canada Goose Zone: That portion of the State south of the North September Canada Goose Zone line to a line extending west from the Indiana border along I-70 to Illinois Route 4, south along Illinois Route 4 to Illinois Route 161, west along Illinois Route 161 to Illinois Route 158, south and west along Illinois Route 158 to Illinois Route 159, south along Illinois Route 159 to Illinois Route 3, south along Illinois Route 3 to St. Leo's Road, south along St. Leo's road to Modoc Road, west along Modoc Road to Modoc Ferry Road, southwest along Modoc Ferry Road to Levee Road, southeast along Levee Road to County Route 12 (Modoc Ferry entrance Road), south along County Route 12 to the Modoc Ferry route and southwest on the Modoc Ferry route across the Mississippi River to the Missouri border.
South September Canada Goose Zone: That portion of the State south and east of a line extending west from the Indiana border along Interstate 70, south along U.S. Highway 45, to Illinois Route 13, west along Illinois Route 13 to Greenbriar Road, north on Greenbriar Road to Sycamore Road, west on Sycamore Road to N. Reed Station Road, south on N. Reed Station Road to Illinois Route 13, west along Illinois Route 13 to Illinois Route 127, south along Illinois Route 127 to State Forest Road (1025 N), west along State Forest Road to Illinois Route 3, north along Illinois Route 3 to the south bank of the Big Muddy River, west along the south bank of the Big Muddy River to the Mississippi River, west across the Mississippi River to the Missouri border.
South Central September Canada Goose Zone: The remainder of the State between the south border of the Central September Canada Goose Zone and the North border of the South September Canada Goose Zone
North Zone: That portion of the State north of a line extending west from the Indiana border along Interstate 80 to I-39, south along I-39 to Illinois Route 18, west along Illinois Route 18 to Illinois Route 29, south along Illinois Route 29 to Illinois Route 17, west along Illinois Route 17 to the Mississippi River, and due south across the Mississippi River to the Iowa border.
Central Zone: That portion of the State south of the North Goose Zone line to a line extending west from the Indiana border along I-70 to Illinois Route 4, south along Illinois Route 4 to Illinois Route 161, west along Illinois Route 161 to Illinois Route 158, south and west along Illinois Route 158 to Illinois Route 159, south along Illinois Route 159 to Illinois Route 3, south along Illinois Route 3 to St. Leo's Road, south along St. Leo's road to Modoc Road, west along Modoc Road to Modoc Ferry Road, southwest along Modoc Ferry Road to Levee Road, southeast along Levee Road to County Route 12 (Modoc Ferry entrance Road), south along County Route 12 to the Modoc Ferry route and southwest on the Modoc Ferry route across the Mississippi River to the Missouri border.
South Zone: Same zone as for ducks.
South Central Zone: Same zone as for ducks.
Same zones as for ducks but in addition:
Late Canada Goose Season Zone: That part of the State encompassed by the following Counties: Adams, Allen, Boone, Clay, De Kalb, Elkhart, Greene, Hamilton, Hancock, Hendricks, Huntington, Johnson, Kosciusko, Lagrange, La Porte, Madison, Marion, Marshall, Morgan, Noble, Parke, Shelby, Starke, Steuben, St. Joseph, Sullivan, Vermillion, Vigo, Wells, and Whitley.
Cedar Rapids/Iowa City Goose Zone: Includes portions of Linn and Johnson Counties bounded as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the west border of Linn County and Linn County Road E2W; then south and east along County Road E2W to Highway 920; then north along Highway 920 to County Road E16; then east along County Road E16 to County Road W58; then south along County Road W58 to County Road E34; then east along County Road E34 to Highway 13; then south along Highway 13 to Highway 30; then east along Highway 30 to Highway 1; then south along Highway 1 to Morse Road in Johnson County; then east along Morse Road to Wapsi Avenue; then south along Wapsi Avenue to Lower West Branch Road; then west along Lower West Branch Road to Taft Avenue; then south along Taft Avenue to County Road F62; then west along County Road F62 to Kansas Avenue; then north along Kansas Avenue to Black Diamond Road; then west on Black Diamond Road to Jasper Avenue; then north along Jasper Avenue to Rohert Road; then west along Rohert Road to Ivy Avenue; then north along Ivy Avenue to 340th Street; then west along 340th Street to Half Moon Avenue; then north along Half Moon Avenue to Highway 6; then west along Highway 6 to Echo Avenue; then north along Echo Avenue to 250th Street; then east on 250th Street to Green Castle Avenue; then north along Green Castle Avenue to County Road F12; then west along County Road F12 to County Road W30; then north along County Road W30 to Highway 151; then north along the Linn-Benton County line to the point of beginning.
Des Moines Goose Zone: Includes those portions of Polk, Warren, Madison and Dallas Counties bounded as follows: Beginning at the intersection of Northwest 158th Avenue and County Road R38 in Polk County; then south along R38 to Northwest 142nd Avenue; then east along Northwest 142nd Avenue to Northeast 126th Avenue; then east along Northeast 126th Avenue to Northeast 46th Street; then south along Northeast 46th Street to Highway 931; then east along Highway 931 to Northeast 80th Street; then south along Northeast 80th Street to Southeast 6th Avenue; then west along Southeast 6th Avenue to Highway 65; then south and west along Highway 65 to Highway 69 in Warren County; then south along Highway 69 to County Road G24; then west along County Road G24 to Highway 28; then southwest along Highway 28 to 43rd Avenue; then north along 43rd Avenue to Ford Street; then west along Ford Street to Filmore Street; then west along Filmore Street to 10th Avenue; then south along 10th Avenue to 155th Street in Madison County; then west along 155th Street to Cumming Road; then north along Cumming Road to Badger Creek Avenue; then north along Badger Creek Avenue to County Road F90 in Dallas County; then east along County Road F90 to County Road R22; then north along County Road R22 to Highway 44; then east along Highway 44 to County Road R30; then north along County Road R30 to County Road F31; then east along County Road F31 to Highway 17; then north along Highway 17 to Highway 415 in Polk County; then east along Highway 415 to Northwest 158th Avenue; then east along Northwest 158th Avenue to the point of beginning.
Cedar Falls/Waterloo Goose Zone: Includes those portions of Black Hawk County bounded as follows: Beginning at the intersection of County Roads C66 and V49 in Black Hawk County, then south along County Road V49 to County Road D38, then west along County Road D38 to State Highway 21, then south along State Highway 21 to County Road D35, then west along County Road D35 to Grundy Road, then north along Grundy Road to County Road D19, then west along County Road D19 to Butler Road, then north along Butler Road to County Road C57, then north and east along County Road C57 to U.S. Highway 63, then south along U.S. Highway 63 to County Road C66, then east along County Road C66 to the point of beginning.
Same zones as for ducks.
Western Zone: That portion of the State west of a line beginning at the Tennessee State line at Fulton and extending north along the Purchase Parkway to Interstate Highway 24, east along I-24 to U.S. Highway 641, north along U.S. 641 to U.S. 60, northeast along U.S. 60 to the Henderson County line, then south, east, and northerly along the Henderson County line to the Indiana State line.
Pennyroyal/Coalfield Zone: Butler, Daviess, Ohio, Simpson, and Warren Counties and all counties lying west to the boundary of the Western Goose Zone.
North Zone: That portion of the State north of the line from the Texas border at Hwy 190/12 east to Hwy 49, then south on Hwy 49 to I-10, then east on I-10 to I-12, then east on I-12 to 1-10, then east on I-10 to the Mississippi State line.
South Zone: Remainder of the State.
North Zone: Same as North duck zone.
Middle Zone: Same as Middle duck zone.
South Zone: Same as South duck zone.
Tuscola/Huron Goose Management Unit (GMU): Those portions of Tuscola and Huron Counties bounded on the south by Michigan Highway 138 and Bay City Road, on the east by Colwood and Bay Port Roads, on the north by Kilmanagh Road and a line extending directly west off the end of Kilmanagh Road into Saginaw Bay to the west boundary, and on the west by the Tuscola-Bay County line and a line extending directly north off the end of the Tuscola-Bay County line into Saginaw Bay to the north boundary.
Allegan County GMU: That area encompassed by a line beginning at the junction of 136th Avenue and Interstate Highway 196 in Lake Town Township and extending easterly along 136th Avenue to Michigan Highway 40, southerly along Michigan 40 through the city of Allegan to 108th Avenue in Trowbridge Township, westerly along 108th Avenue to 46th Street, northerly along 46th Street to 109th Avenue, westerly along 109th Avenue to I-196 in Casco Township, then northerly along I-196 to the point of beginning.
Saginaw County GMU: That portion of Saginaw County bounded by Michigan Highway 46 on the north; Michigan 52 on the west; Michigan 57 on the south; and Michigan 13 on the east.
Muskegon Wastewater GMU: That portion of Muskegon County within the boundaries of the Muskegon County wastewater system, east of the Muskegon State Game Area, in sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19, 20, 29, 30, and 32, T10N R14W, and sections 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 24, and 25, T10N R15W, as posted.
Southern Michigan Late Season Canada Goose Zone: Same as the South Duck Zone excluding Tuscola/Huron
Northwest Goose Zone: That portion of the State encompassed by a line extending east from the North Dakota border along U.S. Highway 2 to State Trunk Highway (STH) 32, north along STH 32 to STH 92, east along STH 92 to County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 2 in Polk County, north along CSAH 2 to CSAH 27 in Pennington County, north along CSAH 27 to STH 1, east along STH 1 to CSAH 28 in Pennington County, north along CSAH 28 to CSAH 54 in Marshall County, north along CSAH 54 to CSAH 9 in Roseau County, north along CSAH 9 to STH 11, west along STH 11 to STH 310, and north along STH 310 to the Manitoba border.
Intensive Harvest Zone: That portion of the State encompassed by a line extending east from the junction of US 2 and the North Dakota border, US 2 east to MN 32 N, MN 32 N to MN 92 S, MN 92 S to MN 200 E, MN 200 E to US 71 S, US 71 S to US 10 E, US 10 E to MN 101 S, MN 101 S to Interstate 94 E, Interstate 94 E to US 494 S, US 494 S to US 212 W, US 212 W to MN 23 S, MN 23 S to US 14 W, US 14 W to the South Dakota border, South Dakota Border north to the North Dakota border, North Dakota border north to US 2 E.
Rest of State: Remainder of Minnesota.
Same zones as for ducks but in addition:
Rochester Goose Zone: That part of the State within the following described boundary:
Beginning at the intersection of State Trunk Highway (STH) 247 and County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 4, Wabasha County; thence along CSAH 4 to CSAH 10, Olmsted County; thence along CSAH 10 to CSAH 9, Olmsted County; thence along CSAH 9 to CSAH 22, Winona County; thence along CSAH 22 to STH 74; thence along STH 74 to STH 30; thence along STH 30 to CSAH 13, Dodge County; thence along CSAH 13 to U.S. Highway 14; thence along U.S. Highway 14 to STH 57; thence along STH 57 to CSAH 24, Dodge County; thence along CSAH 24 to CSAH 13, Olmsted County; thence along CSAH 13 to U.S. Highway 52; thence along U.S. Highway 52 to CSAH 12, Olmsted County; thence along CSAH 12 to STH 247; thence along STH 247 to the point of beginning.
Same zones as for ducks.
Same zones as for ducks.
Northwest Goose Zone: Lake, Obion, and Weakley Counties and those portions of Gibson and Dyer Counties north of State Highways 20 and 104 and east of U.S. Highways 45 and 45W.
Remainder of State: That portion of Tennessee outside of the Northwest Goose Zone.
Early-Season Subzone A: That portion of the State encompassed by a line beginning at the intersection of U.S. Highway 141 and the Michigan border near Niagara, then south along U.S. 141 to State Highway 22, west and southwest along State 22 to U.S. 45, south along U.S. 45 to State 22, west and south along State 22 to State 110, south along State 110 to U.S. 10, south along U.S. 10 to State 49, south along State 49 to State 23, west along State 23 to State 73, south along State 73 to State 60, west along State 60 to State 23, south along State 23 to State 11, east along State 11 to State 78, then south along State 78 to the Illinois border.
Early-Season Subzone B: The remainder of the State.
Same zones as for ducks but in addition:
Horicon Zone: That portion of the State encompassed by a boundary beginning at the intersection of State 23 and State 73 and moves south along State 73 until the intersection of State 73 and State 60, then moves east along State 60 until the intersection of State 60 and State 83, and then moves north along State 83 until the intersection of State 83 and State 33 at which point it moves east until the intersection of State 33 and U.S. 45, then moves north along U.S. 45 until the intersection of U.S. 45 and State 23, at which point it moves west along State 23 until the intersection of State 23 and State 73.
Northern Front Range Area: All areas in Boulder, Larimer, and Weld Counties from the Continental Divide east along the Wyoming border to U.S. 85, south on U.S. 85 to the Adams County line, and all lands in Adams, Arapahoe, Broomfield, Clear Creek, Denver, Douglas, Gilpin, and Jefferson Counties.
North Park Area: Jackson County.
South Park and San Luis Valley Area: All of Alamosa, Chaffee, Conejos, Costilla, Custer, Fremont, Lake, Park, Rio Grande, and Teller Counties, and those portions of Saguache, Mineral and Hinsdale Counties east of the Continental Divide.
Remainder: Remainder of the Central Flyway portion of Colorado.
Eastern Colorado Late Light Goose Area: That portion of the State east of Interstate Highway 25.
Zone N: Same as Zone 1 for ducks.
Zone S: Same as Zone 2 for ducks.
Niobrara Unit: That area contained within and bounded by the intersection of the South Dakota State line and the eastern Cherry County line, south along the Cherry County line to the Niobrara River, east to the Norden Road, south on the Norden Road to U.S. Hwy 20, east along U.S. Hwy 20 to NE Hwy 14, north along NE Hwy 14 to NE Hwy 59 and County Road 872, west along County Road 872 to the Knox County Line, north along the Knox County Line to the South Dakota State line. Where the Niobrara River forms the boundary, both banks of the river are included in the Niobrara Unit.
East Unit: That area north and east of U.S. 81 at the Kansas-Nebraska State line, north to NE Hwy 91, east to U.S. 275, south to U.S. 77, south to NE 91, east to U.S. 30, east to Nebraska-Iowa State line.
Platte River Unit: That area north and west of U.S. 81 at the Kansas-Nebraska State line, north to NE Hwy 91, west along NE 91 to NE 11, north to the Holt County line, west along the northern border of Garfield, Loup, Blaine and Thomas Counties to the Hooker County line, south along the Thomas-Hooker County lines to the McPherson County line, east along the south border of Thomas County to the western line of Custer County, south along the Custer-Logan County line to NE 92, west to U.S. 83, north to NE 92, west to NE 61, south along NE 61 to NE 92, west along NE 92 to U.S. Hwy 26, south along U.S. Hwy 26 to Keith County Line, south along Keith County Line to the Colorado State line.
Panhandle Unit: That area north and west of Keith-Deuel County Line at the Nebraska-Colorado State line, north along the Keith County Line to U.S. Hwy 26, west to NE Hwy 92, east to NE Hwy 61, north along NE Hwy 61 to NE Hwy 2, west along NE 2 to the corner
North-Central Unit: The remainder of the State.
Rainwater Basin Light Goose Area: The area bounded by the junction of NE Hwy. 92 and NE Hwy. 15, south along NE Hwy. 15 to NE Hwy. 4, west along NE Hwy. 4 to U.S. Hwy. 34, west along U.S. Hwy. 34 to U.S. Hwy. 283, north along U.S. Hwy. 283 to U.S. Hwy. 30, east along U.S. Hwy. 30 to NE Hwy. 92, east along NE Hwy. 92 to the beginning.
Remainder of State: The remainder portion of Nebraska.
Middle Rio Grande Valley Unit: Sierra, Socorro, and Valencia Counties.
Remainder: The remainder of the Central Flyway portion of New Mexico.
Missouri River Canada Goose Zone: The area within and bounded by a line starting where ND Hwy 6 crosses the South Dakota border; then north on ND Hwy 6 to I-94; then west on I-94 to ND Hwy 49; then north on ND Hwy 49 to ND Hwy 200; then north on Mercer County Rd. 21 to the section line between sections 8 and 9 (T146N-R87W); then north on that section line to the southern shoreline to Lake Sakakawea; then east along the southern shoreline (including Mallard Island) of Lake Sakakawea to U.S. Hwy 83; then south on U.S. Hwy 83 to ND Hwy 200; then east on ND Hwy 200 to ND Hwy 41; then south on ND Hwy 41 to U.S. Hwy 83; then south on U.S. Hwy 83 to I-94; then east on I-94 to U.S. Hwy 83; then south on U.S. Hwy 83 to the South Dakota border; then west along the South Dakota border to ND Hwy 6.
Rest of State: Remainder of North Dakota.
Special Early Canada Goose Unit: The Counties of Campbell, Marshall, Roberts, Day, Clark, Codington, Grant, Hamlin, Deuel, Walworth; that portion of Perkins County west of State Highway 75 and south of State Highway 20; that portion of Dewey County north of Bureau of Indian Affairs Road 8, Bureau of Indian Affairs Road 9, and the section of U.S. Highway 212 east of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Road 8 junction; that portion of Potter County east of U.S. Highway 83; that portion of Sully County east of U.S. Highway 83; portions of Hyde, Buffalo, Brule, and Charles Mix counties north and east of a line beginning at the Hughes-Hyde County line on State Highway 34, east to Lees Boulevard, southeast to State Highway 34, east 7 miles to 350th Avenue, south to Interstate 90 on 350th Avenue, south and east on State Highway 50 to Geddes, east on 285th Street to U.S. Highway 281, and north on U.S. Highway 281 to the Charles Mix-Douglas County boundary; that portion of Bon Homme County north of State Highway 50; McPherson, Edmunds, Kingsbury, Brookings, Lake, Moody, Miner, Faulk, Hand, Jerauld, Douglas, Hutchinson, Turner, Union, Clay, Yankton, Aurora, Beadle, Davison, Hanson, Sanborn, Spink, Brown, Harding, Butte, Lawrence, Meade, Oglala Lakota (formerly Shannon), Jackson, Mellette, Todd, Jones, Haakon, Corson, Ziebach, and McCook Counties; and those portions of Minnehaha and Lincoln counties outside of an area bounded by a line beginning at the junction of the South Dakota-Minnesota State line and Minnehaha County Highway 122 (254th Street) west to its junction with Minnehaha County Highway 149 (464th Avenue), south on Minnehaha County Highway 149 (464th Avenue) to Hartford, then south on Minnehaha County Highway 151 (463rd Avenue) to State Highway 42, east on State Highway 42 to State Highway 17, south on State Highway 17 to its junction with Lincoln County Highway 116 (Klondike Road), and east on Lincoln County Highway 116 (Klondike Road) to the South Dakota-Iowa State line, then north along the South Dakota-Iowa and South Dakota-Minnesota border to the junction of the South Dakota-Minnesota State line and Minnehaha County Highway 122 (254th Street).
Unit 1: Same as that for the September Canada Goose Season.
Unit 2: Remainder of South Dakota.
Unit 3: Bennett County.
Northeast Goose Zone: That portion of Texas lying east and north of a line beginning at the Texas-Oklahoma border at U.S. 81, then continuing south to Bowie and then southeasterly along U.S. 81 and U.S. 287 to I-35W and I-35 to the juncture with I-10 in San Antonio, then east on I-10 to the Texas-Louisiana border.
Southeast Goose Zone: That portion of Texas lying east and south of a line beginning at the International Toll Bridge at Laredo, then continuing north following I-35 to the juncture with I-10 in San Antonio, then easterly along I-10 to the Texas-Louisiana border.
West Goose Zone: The remainder of the State.
Zone G1: Big Horn, Converse, Hot Springs, Natrona, Park, and Washakie Counties; and Fremont County excluding those portions south or west of the Continental Divide.
Zone G1A: Goshen and Platte Counties.
Zone G2: Campbell, Crook, Johnson, Niobrara, Sheridan, and Weston Counties.
Zone G3: Albany and Laramie Counties; and that portion of Carbon County east of the Continental Divide.
Same zones as for ducks.
Northeastern Zone: In that portion of California lying east and north of a line beginning at the intersection of Interstate 5 with the California-Oregon line; south along Interstate 5 to its junction with Walters Lane south of the town of Yreka; west along Walters Lane to its junction with Easy Street; south along Easy Street to the junction with Old Highway 99; south along Old Highway 99 to the point of intersection with Interstate 5 north of the town of Weed; south along Interstate 5 to its junction with Highway 89; east and south along Highway 89 to main street Greenville; north and east to its junction with North Valley Road; south to its junction of Diamond Mountain Road; north and east to its junction with North Arm Road; south and west to the junction of North Valley Road; south to the junction with Arlington Road (A22); west to the junction of Highway 89; south and west to the junction of Highway 70; east on Highway 70 to Highway 395; south and east on Highway 395 to the point of intersection with the California-Nevada State line; north along the California-Nevada State line to the junction of the California-Nevada-Oregon State lines west along the California-Oregon State line to the point of origin.
Colorado River Zone: Those portions of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial Counties east of a line extending from the Nevada border south along U.S. 95 to Vidal Junction; south on a road known as “Aqueduct Road”
Southern Zone: That portion of southern California (but excluding the Colorado River Zone) south and east of a line extending from the Pacific Ocean east along the Santa Maria River to CA 166 near the City of Santa Maria; east on CA 166 to CA 99; south on CA 99 to the crest of the Tehachapi Mountains at Tejon Pass; east and north along the crest of the Tehachapi Mountains to CA 178 at Walker Pass; east on CA 178 to U.S. 395 at the town of Inyokern; south on U.S. 395 to CA 58; east on CA 58 to I-15; east on I-15 to CA 127; north on CA 127 to the Nevada border.
Imperial County Special Management Area: The area bounded by a line beginning at Highway 86 and the Navy Test Base Road; south on Highway 86 to the town of Westmoreland; continue through the town of Westmoreland to Route S26; east on Route S26 to Highway 115; north on Highway 115 to Weist Rd.; north on Weist Rd. to Flowing Wells Rd.; northeast on Flowing Wells Rd. to the Coachella Canal; northwest on the Coachella Canal to Drop 18; a straight line from Drop 18 to Frink Rd.; south on Frink Rd. to Highway 111; north on Highway 111 to Niland Marina Rd.; southwest on Niland Marina Rd. to the old Imperial County boat ramp and the water line of the Salton Sea; from the water line of the Salton Sea, a straight line across the Salton Sea to the Salinity Control Research Facility and the Navy Test Base Road; southwest on the Navy Test Base Road to the point of beginning.
Balance of State Zone: The remainder of California not included in the Northeastern, Colorado River, and Southern Zones.
North Coast Special Management Area: Del Norte and Humboldt Counties.
Sacramento Valley Special Management Area: That area bounded by a line beginning at Willows south on I-5 to Hahn Road; easterly on Hahn Road and the Grimes-Arbuckle Road to Grimes; northerly on CA 45 to the junction with CA 162; northerly on CA 45/162 to Glenn; and westerly on CA 162 to the point of beginning in Willows.
Same zones as for ducks.
Zone 1: All lands and waters within the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, including private in-holdings; Bannock County; Bingham County, except that portion within the Blackfoot Reservoir drainage; Caribou County within the Fort Hall Indian Reservation; and Power County east of State Highway 37 and State Highway 39.
Zone 2: Adams, Benewah, Blaine, Bonner, Bonneville, Boundary, Butte, Camas, Clark, Clearwater, Custer, Franklin, Fremont, Idaho, Jefferson, Kootenai, Latah, Lemhi, Lewis, Madison, Nez Perce, Oneida, Shoshone, Teton, and Valley Counties; and Power County west of State Highway 37 and State Highway 39.
Zone 3: Ada, Boise, Canyon, Cassia, Elmore, Gem, Gooding, Jerome, Lincoln, Minidoka, Owyhee, Payette, Twin Falls, and Washington Counties.
Zone 4: Bear Lake County; Bingham County within the Blackfoot Reservoir drainage; and Caribou County, except that portion within the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.
Same zones as for ducks.
Zone 1: All lands and waters within the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, including private in-holdings; Bannock County; Bingham County east of the west bank of the Snake River, west of the McTucker boat ramp access road, and east of the American Falls Reservoir bluff, except that portion within the Blackfoot Reservoir drainage; Caribou County within the Fort Hall Indian Reservation; and Power County below the American Falls Reservoir bluff, and within the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.
Zone 2: Bingham County west of the west bank of the Snake River, east of the McTucker boat ramp access road, and west of the American Falls Reservoir bluff; Power County, except below the American Falls Reservoir bluff and those lands and waters within the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.
Zone 3: Ada, Boise, Canyon, Cassia, Elmore, Gem, Gooding, Jerome, Lincoln, Minidoka, Owyhee, Payette, Twin Falls, and Washington Counties.
Zone 4: Adams, Bear Lake, Benewah, Blaine, Bonner, Bonneville, Boundary, Butte, Camas, Clark, Clearwater, Custer, Franklin, Fremont, Idaho, Jefferson, Kootenai, Latah, Lemhi, Lewis, Madison, Nez Perce, Oneida, Shoshone, Teton, and Valley Counties; Caribou County, except the Fort Hall Indian Reservation; Bingham County within the Blackfoot Reservoir drainage.
East of the Divide Zone: The Pacific Flyway portion of Montana located east of the Continental Divide.
West of the Divide Zone: The Pacific Flyway portion of Montana located west of the Continental Divide.
Same zones as for ducks.
North Zone: The Pacific Flyway portion of New Mexico located north of I-40.
South Zone: The Pacific Flyway portion of New Mexico located south of I-40.
Northwest Permit Zone: Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Lane, Lincoln, Linn, Marion, Multnomah, Polk, Tillamook, Washington, and Yamhill Counties.
Lower Columbia/N. Willamette Valley Management Area: Those portions of Clatsop, Columbia, Multnomah, and Washington Counties within the Northwest Special Permit Zone.
Tillamook County Management Area: That portion of Tillamook County beginning at the point where Old Woods Rd crosses the south shores of Horn Creek, north on Old Woods Rd to Sand Lake Rd at Woods, north on Sand Lake Rd to the intersection with McPhillips Dr, due west (~200 yards) from the intersection to the Pacific coastline, south on the Pacific coastline to Neskowin Creek, east along the north shores of Neskowin Creek and then Hawk Creek to Salem Ave, east on Salem Ave in Neskowin to Hawk Ave, east on Hawk Ave to Hwy 101, north on Hwy 101 to Resort Dr, north on Resort Dr to a point due west of the south shores of Horn Creek at its confluence with the Nestucca River, due east (~80 yards) across the Nestucca River to the south shores of Horn Creek, east along the south shores of Horn Creek to the point of beginning.
Southwest Zone: Those portions of Douglas, Coos, and Curry Counties east of Highway 101, and Josephine and Jackson Counties.
South Coast Zone: Those portions of Douglas, Coos, and Curry Counties west of Highway 101.
Eastern Zone: Baker, Crook, Deschutes, Gilliam, Grant, Hood River,
Klamath County Zone: Klamath County.
Harney and Lake County Zone: Harney and Lake Counties.
Malheur County Zone: Malheur County.
Northern Zone: Boundary begins at the intersection of the eastern boundary of Public Shooting Grounds Waterfowl Management Area and SR-83 (Promontory Road); east along SR-83 to I-15; south on I-15 to the Perry access road; southwest along this road to the Bear River Bird Refuge boundary; west, north, and then east along the refuge boundary until it intersects the Public Shooting Grounds Waterfowl Management Area boundary; east and north along the Public Shooting Grounds Waterfowl Management Area boundary to SR-83.
Wasatch Front Zone: Boundary begins at the Weber-Box Elder county line at I-15; east along Weber county line to U.S.-89; south on U.S.-89 to I-84; east and south and along I-84 to I-80; south along I-80 to U.S.-189; south and west along U.S.-189 to the Utah County line; southeast and then west along this line to I-15; north on I-15 to U.S.-6; west on U.S.-6 to SR-36; north on SR-36 to I-80; north along a line from this intersection to the southern tip of Promontory Point and Promontory Road; east and north along this road to the causeway separating Bear River Bay from Ogden Bay; east on this causeway to the southwest corner of Great Salt Lake Mineral Corporations (GSLMC) west impoundment; north and east along GSLMC's west impoundment to the northwest corner of the impoundment; directly north from this point along an imaginary line to the southern boundary of Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge; east along this southern boundary to the Perry access road; northeast along this road to I-15; south along I-15 to the Weber-Box Elder county line.
Washington County Zone: Washington County.
Balance of State Zone: The remainder of Utah not included in the Northern, Wasatch Front, and Washington County Zones.
Area 1: Skagit, Island, and Snohomish Counties.
Area 2A (Southwest Permit Zone): Clark, Cowlitz, and Wahkiakum Counties.
Area 2B (Southwest Permit Zone): Grays Harbor and Pacific Counties.
Area 3: All areas west of the Pacific Crest Trail and west of the Big White Salmon River that are not included in Areas 1, 2A, and 2B.
Area 4: Adams, Benton, Chelan, Douglas, Franklin, Grant, Kittitas, Lincoln, Okanogan, Spokane, and Walla Walla Counties.
Area 5: All areas east of the Pacific Crest Trail and east of the Big White Salmon River that are not included in Area 4.
Northern Zone: Del Norte, Humboldt, and Mendocino Counties.
Balance of State Zone: The remainder of the State not included in the Northern Zone.
Puget Sound Zone: Skagit County.
Coastal Zone: Pacific County.
Aurora, Beadle, Brookings, Brown, Brule, Buffalo, Campbell, Clark, Codington, Davison, Day, Deuel, Edmunds, Faulk, Grant, Hamlin, Hand, Hanson, Hughes, Hyde, Jerauld, Kingsbury, Lake, Marshall, McCook, McPherson, Miner, Minnehaha, Moody, Potter, Roberts, Sanborn, Spink, Sully, and Walworth Counties.
Open Area: Cascade, Chouteau, Hill, Liberty, and Toole Counties and those portions of Pondera and Teton Counties lying east of U.S. 287-89.
Open Area: Churchill, Lyon, and Pershing Counties.
Open Area: Those portions of Box Elder, Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, and Toole Counties lying west of I-15, north of I-80, and south of a line beginning from the Forest Street exit to the Bear River National Wildlife Refuge boundary; then north and west along the Bear River National Wildlife Refuge boundary to the farthest west boundary of the Refuge; then west along a line to Promontory Road; then north on Promontory Road to the intersection of SR 83; then north on SR 83 to I-84; then north and west on I-84 to State Hwy 30; then west on State Hwy 30 to the Nevada-Utah State line; then south on the Nevada-Utah State line to I-80.
South Zone: Baldwin, Barbour, Coffee, Covington, Dale, Escambia, Geneva, Henry, Houston, and Mobile Counties.
North Zone: Remainder of the State.
Northwest Zone: The Counties of Bay, Calhoun, Escambia, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Holmes, Jackson, Liberty, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Walton, Washington, Leon (except that portion north of U.S. 27 and east of State Road 155), Jefferson (south of U.S. 27, west of State Road 59 and north of U.S. 98), and Wakulla (except that portion south of U.S. 98 and east of the St. Marks River).
South Zone: Remainder of State.
North Zone: That portion of the State north of a line extending east from the Texas border along State Highway 12 to U.S. Highway 190, east along U.S. 190 to Interstate Highway 12, east along Interstate Highway 12 to Interstate Highway 10, then east along Interstate Highway 10 to the Mississippi border.
South Zone: The remainder of the State.
North Zone: That portion of the State north and west of a line extending west from the Alabama State line along U.S. Highway 84 to its junction with State Highway 35, then south along State Highway 35 to the Louisiana State line.
South Zone: The remainder of Mississippi.
North Zone: That portion of the State north of a line beginning at the International Bridge south of Fort Hancock; north along FM 1088 to TX 20; west along TX 20 to TX 148; north along TX 148 to I-10 at Fort Hancock; east along I-10 to I-20; northeast along I-20 to I-30 at Fort Worth; northeast along I-30 to the Texas-Arkansas State line.
South Zone: That portion of the State south and west of a line beginning at the International Bridge south of Del Rio, proceeding east on U.S. 90 to State Loop 1604 west of San Antonio; then south, east, and north along Loop 1604 to I-10 east of San Antonio; then east on I-10 to Orange, Texas.
Special White-winged Dove Area in the South Zone: That portion of the State south and west of a line beginning at the International Toll Bridge in Del
Central Zone: That portion of the State lying between the North and South Zones.
North Zone: Alpine, Butte, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Tehama, and Trinity Counties.
South Zone: The remainder of the State not included in the North Zone.
North Zone: North of a line following U.S. 60 from the Arizona State line east to I-25 at Socorro and then south along I-25 from Socorro to the Texas State line.
South Zone: The remainder of the State not included in the North Zone.
Western Washington: The State of Washington excluding those portions lying east of the Pacific Crest Trail and east of the Big White Salmon River in Klickitat County.
North Zone: That portion of the State north of NJ 70.
South Zone: The remainder of the State.
Northwest Goose Zone: That portion of the State encompassed by a line extending east from the North Dakota border along U.S. Highway 2 to State Trunk Highway (STH) 32, north along STH 32 to STH 92, east along STH 92 to County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 2 in Polk County, north along CSAH 2 to CSAH 27 in Pennington County, north along CSAH 27 to STH 1, east along STH 1 to CSAH 28 in Pennington County, north along CSAH 28 to CSAH 54 in Marshall County, north along CSAH 54 to CSAH 9 in Roseau County, north along CSAH 9 to STH 11, west along STH 11 to STH 310, and north along STH 310 to the Manitoba border.
Hunt Zone: That portion of the State south of Interstate 40 and east of State Highway 56.
Closed Zone: Remainder of the State.
The Central Flyway portion of the State except the San Luis Valley (Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Hinsdale, Mineral, Rio Grande, and Saguache Counties east of the Continental Divide) and North Park (Jackson County).
That portion of the State west of a line beginning at the Oklahoma border, north on I-35 to Wichita, north on I-135 to Salina, and north on U.S. 81 to the Nebraska border.
Regular Season Open Area: The Central Flyway portion of the State except for that area south and west of Interstate 90, which is closed to sandhill crane hunting.
Special Season Open Area: Carbon County.
Regular-Season Open Area: Chaves, Curry, De Baca, Eddy, Lea, Quay, and Roosevelt Counties.
Middle Rio Grande Valley Area: The Central Flyway portion of New Mexico in Socorro and Valencia Counties.
Estancia Valley Area: Those portions of Santa Fe, Torrance, and Bernallilo Counties within an area bounded on the west by New Mexico Highway 55 beginning at Mountainair north to NM 337, north to NM 14, north to I-25; on the north by I-25 east to U.S. 285; on the east by U.S. 285 south to U.S. 60; and on the south by U.S. 60 from U.S. 285 west to NM 55 in Mountainair.
Southwest Zone: Area bounded on the south by the New Mexico-Mexico border; on the west by the New Mexico-Arizona border north to Interstate 10; on the north by Interstate 10 east to U.S. 180, north to N.M. 26, east to N.M. 27, north to N.M. 152, and east to Interstate 25; on the east by Interstate 25 south to Interstate 10, west to the Luna County line, and south to the New Mexico-Mexico border.
Area 1: That portion of the State west of U.S. 281.
Area 2: That portion of the State east of U.S. 281.
That portion of the State west of I-35.
That portion of the State west of U.S. 281.
Zone A: That portion of Texas lying west of a line beginning at the international toll bridge at Laredo, then northeast along U.S. Highway 81 to its junction with Interstate Highway 35 in Laredo, then north along Interstate Highway 35 to its junction with Interstate Highway 10 in San Antonio, then northwest along Interstate Highway 10 to its junction with U.S. Highway 83 at Junction, then north along U.S. Highway 83 to its junction with U.S. Highway 62, 16 miles north of Childress, then east along U.S. Highway 62 to the Texas-Oklahoma State line.
Zone B: That portion of Texas lying within boundaries beginning at the junction of U.S. Highway 81 and the Texas-Oklahoma State line, then southeast along U.S. Highway 81 to its junction with U.S. Highway 287 in Montague County, then southeast along U.S. Highway 287 to its junction with Interstate Highway 35W in Fort Worth, then southwest along Interstate Highway 35 to its junction with Interstate Highway 10 in San Antonio, then northwest along Interstate Highway 10 to its junction with U.S. Highway 83 in the town of Junction, then north along U.S. Highway 83 to its junction with U.S. Highway 62, 16 miles north of Childress, then east along U.S. Highway 62 to the Texas-Oklahoma State line, then south along the Texas-Oklahoma State line to the south bank of the Red River, then eastward along the vegetation line on the south bank of the Red River to U.S. Highway 81.
Zone C: The remainder of the State, except for the closed areas.
Closed areas: (A) That portion of the State lying east and north of a line beginning at the junction of U.S. Highway 81 and the Texas-Oklahoma State line, then southeast along U.S. Highway 81 to its junction with U.S. Highway 287 in Montague County, then southeast along U.S. Highway 287 to its junction with I-35W in Fort Worth, then southwest along I-35 to its junction with U.S. Highway 290 East in Austin, then east along U.S. Highway 290 to its junction with Interstate Loop 610 in Harris County, then south and east along Interstate Loop 610 to its junction with Interstate Highway 45 in Houston, then south on Interstate Highway 45 to State Highway 342, then to the shore of the Gulf of Mexico, and then north and
(B) That portion of the State lying within the boundaries of a line beginning at the Kleberg-Nueces County line and the shore of the Gulf of Mexico, then west along the County line to Park Road 22 in Nueces County, then north and west along Park Road 22 to its junction with State Highway 358 in Corpus Christi, then west and north along State Highway 358 to its junction with State Highway 286, then north along State Highway 286 to its junction with Interstate Highway 37, then east along Interstate Highway 37 to its junction with U.S. Highway 181, then north and west along U.S. Highway 181 to its junction with U.S. Highway 77 in Sinton, then north and east along U.S. Highway 77 to its junction with U.S. Highway 87 in Victoria, then south and east along U.S. Highway 87 to its junction with State Highway 35 at Port Lavaca, then north and east along State Highway 35 to the south end of the Lavaca Bay Causeway, then south and east along the shore of Lavaca Bay to its junction with the Port Lavaca Ship Channel, then south and east along the Lavaca Bay Ship Channel to the Gulf of Mexico, and then south and west along the shore of the Gulf of Mexico to the Kleberg-Nueces County line.
Campbell, Converse, Crook, Goshen, Laramie, Niobrara, Platte, and Weston Counties.
Riverton-Boysen Unit: Portions of Fremont County.
Park and Big Horn County Unit: All of Big Horn, Hot Springs, Johnson, Natrona, Park, Sheridan, and Washakie Counties.
Special Season Area: Game Management Units 28, 30A, 30B, 31, and 32.
Area 1: All of Bear Lake County and all of Caribou County except that portion lying within the Grays Lake Basin.
Area 2: All of Teton County except that portion lying west of State Highway 33 and south of Packsaddle Road (West 400 North) and north of the North Cedron Road (West 600 South) and east of the west bank of the Teton River.
Area 3: All of Fremont County except the Chester Wetlands Wildlife Management Area.
Area 4: All of Jefferson County.
Area 5: All of Bannock County east of Interstate-15 and south of U.S. Highway 30; and all of Franklin County.
Zone 1 (Warm Springs Portion of Deer Lodge County): Those portions of Deer Lodge County lying within the following described boundary: beginning at the intersection of I-90 and Highway 273, then westerly along Highway 273 to the junction of Highway 1, then southeast along said highway to Highway 275 at Opportunity, then east along said highway to East Side County road, then north along said road to Perkins Lake, then west on said lane to I-90, then north on said interstate to the junction of Highway 273, the point of beginning. Except for sections 13 and 24, T5N, R10W; and Warm Springs Pond number 3.
Zone 2 (Ovando-Helmville Area): That portion of the Pacific Flyway, located in Powell County lying within the following described boundary: beginning at the junction of State Routes 141 and 200, then west along Route 200 to its intersection with the Blackfoot River at Russell Gates Fishing Access Site (Powell-Missoula County line), then southeast along said river to its intersection with the Ovando-Helmville Road (County Road 104) at Cedar Meadows Fishing Access Site, then south and east along said road to its junction with State Route 141, then north along said route to its junction with State Route 200, the point of beginning.
Zone 3 (Dillon/Twin Bridges/Cardwell Areas): That portion of Beaverhead, Madison, and Jefferson counties lying within the following described boundaries: Beginning at Dillon, then northerly along US Hwy 91 to its intersection with the Big Hole River at Brown's Bridge north of Glen, then southeasterly and northeasterly along the Big Hole River to High Road, then east along High Road to State Highway 41, then east along said highway to the Beaverhead River, then north along said river to the Jefferson River and north along the Jefferson River to the Ironrod Bridge, then northeasterly along State Highway 41 to the junction with State Highway 55, then northeasterly along said highway to the junction with I-90, then east along I-90 to Cardwell and Route 359 then south along Route 359 to the Parrot Hill/Cedar Hill Road then southwesterly along said road and the Cemetery Hill Road to the Parrot Ditch road to the Point of Rocks Road to Carney Lane to the Bench Road to the Waterloo Road and Bayers Lanes, to State Highway 41, then east along State Highway 41 to the Beaverhead River, then south along the Beaverhead River to the mouth of the Ruby River, then southeasterly along the Ruby River to the East Bench Road, then southwesterly along the East Bench Road to the East Bench Canal, then southwesterly along said canal to the Sweetwater Road, then west along Sweetwater Road to Dillon, the point of beginning, plus the remainder of Madison County and all of Gallatin County.
Zone 4 (Broadwater County): Broadwater County.
Cache County: Cache County.
East Box Elder County: That portion of Box Elder County beginning on the Utah-Idaho State line at the Box Elder-Cache County line; west on the State line to the Pocatello Valley County Road; south on the Pocatello Valley County Road to I-15; southeast on I-15 to SR-83; south on SR-83 to Lamp Junction; west and south on the Promontory Point County Road to the tip of Promontory Point; south from Promontory Point to the Box Elder-Weber County line; east on the Box Elder-Weber County line to the Box Elder-Cache County line; north on the Box Elder-Cache County line to the Utah-Idaho State line.
Rich County: Rich County.
Uintah County: Uintah County.
Area 1 (Bear River): All of the Bear River and Ham's Fork River drainages in Lincoln County.
Area 2 (Salt River Area): All of the Salt River drainage in Lincoln County south of the McCoy Creek Road.
Area 3 (Eden Valley Area): All lands within the Bureau of Reclamation's Eden Project in Sweetwater County.
Area 5 (Uintah County Area): Uinta County.
North Zone: State Game Management Units 11-13 and 17-26.
Gulf Coast Zone: State Game Management Units 5-7, 9, 14-16, and 10 (Unimak Island only).
Southeast Zone: State Game Management Units 1-4.
Pribilof and Aleutian Islands Zone: State Game Management Unit 10 (except Unimak Island).
Kodiak Zone: State Game Management Unit 8.
Ruth Cay Closure Area: The island of Ruth Cay, just south of St. Croix.
Municipality of Culebra Closure Area: All of the municipality of Culebra.
Desecheo Island Closure Area: All of Desecheo Island.
Mona Island Closure Area: All of Mona Island.
El Verde Closure Area: Those areas of the municipalities of Rio Grande and Loiza delineated as follows: (1) All lands between Routes 956 on the west and 186 on the east, from Route 3 on the north to the juncture of Routes 956 and 186 (Km 13.2) in the south; (2) all lands between Routes 186 and 966 from the juncture of 186 and 966 on the north, to the Caribbean National Forest Boundary on the south; (3) all lands lying west of Route 186 for 1 kilometer from the juncture of Routes 186 and 956 south to Km 6 on Route 186; (4) all lands within Km 14 and Km 6 on the west and the Caribbean National Forest Boundary on the east; and (5) all lands within the Caribbean National Forest Boundary whether private or public.
Cidra Municipality and adjacent areas: All of Cidra Municipality and portions of Aguas Buenas, Caguas, Cayey, and Comerio Municipalities as encompassed within the following boundary: beginning on Highway 172 as it leaves the municipality of Cidra on the west edge, north to Highway 156, east on Highway 156 to Highway 1, south on Highway 1 to Highway 765, south on Highway 765 to Highway 763, south on Highway 763 to the Rio Guavate, west along Rio Guavate to Highway 1, southwest on Highway 1 to Highway 14, west on Highway 14 to Highway 729, north on Highway 729 to Cidra Municipality boundary to the point of the beginning.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice of Final Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Fair Market Rents (FMRs).
Section 8(c)(1) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (USHA) requires the Secretary of HUD to publish FMRs periodically, but not less than annually, adjusted to be effective on October 1 of each year. The primary uses of FMRs are to determine payment standards for the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program; to determine initial renewal rents for some expiring project-based Section 8 contracts; to determine initial rents for housing assistance payment contracts in the Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy program; and, to serve as rent ceilings for rental assistance units in the HOME Investment Partnerships program. FMRs are used in the calculation of maximum award amounts for Continuum of Care grantees and are used in the calculation of flat rents in Public Housing units. Today's notice provides final FY 2016 FMRs for all areas that reflect the estimated 40th and 50th percentile rent levels trended to FY 2016. The FY 2016 FMRs use rent data collected by Bureau of the Census by the American Community Survey (ACS). This rent data is collected over a five-year period, from 2009 through 2013. These data are updated by one-year 2013 ACS data for areas where statistically valid one-year ACS data is available. HUD continues to use ACS data in different ways according to the statistical reliability of rent estimates. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) rent and utility indexes are used to further update the data to 2014. These values are then trended forward to FY 2016. Based on the comments received and as way to estimate FMRs more accurately, HUD has replaced the historical-based annualized change in gross rent trend factor with a forward-looking forecast for these final FY 2016 FMRs. The national trend factor for the final FY 2016 FMRs uses a model that forecasts national rent and utility CPI indices based on economic assumptions used in the formulation of the President's Budget.
The FY 2016 FMRs incorporate a change in the level of statistical reliability that allowed for an ACS estimate to be used in the calculation of FMRs. Previously, if the error of the estimate was less than the estimate itself, HUD used the estimate. The FY 2016 FMRs use ACS estimates where the size of the error is limited to half of the estimate. An additional change to the FY 2016 FMRs is the incorporation of the February 28, 2013, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) metropolitan area definition update based on the 2010 Decennial Census data. The 2013 ACS data are the first to use the new area definitions in the compilation of the ACS data. Bedroom ratios (comparing zero-, one-, three- and four-bedroom rents to the two-bedroom base rent) were updated from the 2010 estimations using a three-year average of five-year ACS data.
For technical information on the methodology used to develop FMRs or a listing of all FMRs, please call the HUD USER information line at 800-245-2691 or access the information on the HUD USER Web site
Questions related to use of FMRs or voucher payment standards should be directed to the respective local HUD program office. Questions on how to conduct FMR surveys or concerning further methodological explanations may be addressed to Marie L. Lihn or Peter B. Kahn, Economic and Market Analysis Division, Office of Economic Affairs, Office of Policy Development and Research, telephone 202-402-2409. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. (Other than the HUD USER information line and TDD numbers, telephone numbers are not toll-free.)
Section 8 of the USHA (42 U.S.C. 1437f) authorizes housing assistance to aid lower-income families in renting safe and decent housing. Housing assistance payments are limited by FMRs established by HUD for different geographic areas. In the HCV program, the FMR is the basis for determining the “payment standard amount” used to calculate the maximum monthly subsidy for an assisted family (see 24 CFR 982.503). In general, the FMR for
Section 8(c)(1) of the USHA requires the Secretary of HUD to publish FMRs periodically, but not less frequently than annually. Section 8(c)(1) states, in part:
Proposed fair market rentals for an area shall be published in the
HUD's regulations at 24 CFR part 888 provide that HUD will develop proposed FMRs, publish them for public comment, provide a public comment period of at least 30 days, analyze the comments, and publish final FMRs. (See 24 CFR 888.115.) For FY 2016 FMRs, HUD has considered all comments submitted in response to its September 8, 2015 (80 FR 53819) proposed FY 2016 FMRs and includes its responses to these comments in this notice.
In addition, HUD's regulations at 24 CFR 888.113 set out procedures for HUD to assess whether areas are eligible for FMRs at the 50th percentile. Minimally qualified areas
In FY 2015 there were 16 areas using 50th-percentile FMRs. Of these 16 areas, six areas were eligible for evaluation. Only three of the six areas will continue as 50th-percentile FMR areas; two of the remaining three areas do not show measurable deconcentration over the three-year period, will not continue as 50th-percentile FMR areas, and will not be considered for the 50th percentile FMR program for three years. One area, New Haven-Meriden, CT HUD Metro FMR Area (HMFA), that was evaluated graduated from the program; this area will be re-evaluated each year. This is a different result for the Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) than in the proposed FY 2016 FMRs, where deconcentration was not measured. After reviewing the data in response to comments, it was discovered that areas up for re-evaluation were not afforded a full three annual time-periods to deconcentrate. A re-evaluation of all areas using three annual time-periods resulted in the continuation of the Baltimore metropolitan area in the 50th percentile FMR program; Fort Lauderdale and Richmond, even with the additional year, did not exhibit measurable deconcentration. Housing authorities in these two areas are encouraged to review the rules at 24 CFR 982.503(f) to determine if they qualify for continued use of the 50th percentile rents when setting their payment standards. One area, Washington, DC-VA-MD HMFA, that failed to deconcentrate as of FY 2013 will once again become a 50th percentile FMR area.
In summary, there will be 14 50th-percentile FMR areas in FY 2016. In Schedule B, where all FMRs are listed by state and area, an asterisk designates the 50th percentile FMR areas. The following table lists the FMR areas along with the year of their next evaluation.
On September 8, 2015 (80 FR 53819), HUD published proposed FY 2016 FMRs with a comment period that ended October 8, 2015. All comments are available for review on the Federal Government's Web site for capturing comments on proposed regulations and related documents (Regulations.gov—
This section provides a brief overview of the calculation steps for the FY 2016 FMRs. For complete information on how FMR areas are determined by each specific FMR area, see the online documentation by FMR area
The proposed FY 2016 FMRs are based on the updated metropolitan area definitions published by OMB on February 28, 2013. Counties that have been removed from metropolitan areas will be nonmetropolitan counties.
The U.S. Census Bureau released standard tabulations of five-year ACS data collected between 2009 through 2013 in December of 2014. For FY 2016 FMRs, HUD uses special tabulations of this five-year ACS data collected between 2009 through 2013 to update the base rents that provide the 40th and 50th percentile standard quality rents that were provided in May 2015. HUD has updated base rents each year based on new five-year data since FY 2012, for which HUD used 2005-2009 ACS data. For FY 2016 FMRs, HUD updated the base rents set in FY 2015 using the 2008-2012 five-year data with the 2009-2013 five-year ACS data.
HUD historically based FMRs on gross rents for recent movers (those who have moved into their current residence in the last 24 months). However, due to the nature of the five-year ACS data, HUD developed a new methodology for calculating recent-mover FMRs in FY 2012. As in FY 2012, HUD assigns all areas a base rent equal to the estimated two-bedroom standard quality five-year gross rent from the ACS.
Following the assignment of the standard quality two-bedroom rent described above, HUD applies a recent mover factor to these rents. The calculation of the recent mover factor for FY 2016 is similar to the methodology HUD used in FY 2015, with the only difference being the use of updated ACS data and the change to the statistical reliability assessment of the ACS data. The following describes the process for determining the appropriate recent mover factor.
In general, HUD uses one-year, two-bedroom recent mover gross rents from the special tabulation of the ACS for the smallest geographic area encompassing the FMR area that is statistically reliable to calculate the recent mover factor.
A new base rent has been calculated for the insular areas using the 2010 decennial census of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands. This is the first time American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands will have an FMR that is separate from Guam. In addition, St. Johns, VI will receive a separate FMR; previously it was combined with St. Thomas. The 2010 rent data is updated to 2013 using the change in national ACS rents from 2010 to 2013.
In addition to the Pacific island areas, HUD does not use the ACS as the base rent or recent mover factor for eight areas where the FY 2016 FMR is based on survey data. Surveys conducted in 2012 for Hood River County, OR, Mountrail County, ND, Ward County, ND, and Williams County, ND are used as base rents. Survey data from 2012 survey still represents the most current data available for these areas where only five-year ACS data exists. These base rents are adjusted to 2014 using regional CPI data. Surveys conducted in 2014 for Bennington County, VT, Windham County, VT, Windsor County, VT, and Seattle, WA are used for base rents. HUD has no funds to conduct surveys of FMR areas, and so future surveys must be paid for by the PHAs.
HUD updates the ACS-based “as of” 2013 rent through the end of 2014 using the annual change in gross rents measured from the CPI between 2013 and 2014. As in previous years, HUD uses Local CPI data coupled with Consumer Expenditure Survey (CEX) data for FMR areas with at least 75 percent of their population within Class A metropolitan areas covered by local CPI data. HUD uses Census region CPI
The trend factor for the final FY 2016 FMRs has been changed from the annualized change in median gross rents as measured across the most recent five years of available 1-year ACS data, used in the proposed FY 2016 FMRs as published on September 8, 2015 (80 FR 53817). Instead, HUD trends the final FY 2016 FMRs forward with national forecasts of the rent and utility components of CPI, resulting in an increase in the FMR for all areas. The trend factor applied for the Proposed FY 2016 FMRs was 1.0334 percent; the forecast trend factor applied to the Final FY 2016 FMRs is 1.0457. The trend factor is the weighted average change between the most recent annual Rent of Primary Residence and Utility CPIs and the same indices forecasted to the relevant fiscal year.
The gross rent data from the 2009 to 2013 Puerto Rico Community Survey (PRCS) coupled with the local CPI data measured across Puerto Rico includes the utility rate increases from Commonwealth-owned utility companies that was the basis for utility rate adjustments across all Puerto Rico FMR areas in both FY 2014 and FY 2015. The FY 2016 FMRs no longer include the utility adjustment; any changes in the Puerto Rico energy tariffs have been in effect long enough to be included in the Puerto Rico CPI. As pointed out in a comment by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Division of Housing, the South Region CPI was inadvertently used for the calculation of Proposed FY 2016 FMRs throughout Puerto Rico, and this has been corrected.
HUD calculates the primary FMR estimates for two-bedroom units. This is generally the most common sized rental unit and, therefore, the most reliable to survey and analyze. Formerly, after each Decennial Census, HUD calculated rent relationships between two-bedroom units and other unit bedroom counts and used them to set FMRs for other units. HUD did this because it is much easier to update two-bedroom estimates and to use pre-established cost relationships with other unit bedroom counts than it is to develop independent FMR estimates for each unit bedroom count. When calculating FY 2013 FMRs, HUD updated the bedroom ratio adjustment factors using 2006-2010 five-year ACS data. The bedroom ratio methodology used in this update was the same methodology that was used when calculating bedroom ratios using 2000 Census data. The bedroom ratios HUD used in the calculation of FY 2016 FMRs have been updated using average data from three five-year data series (2007-2011, 2008-2012, and 2009- 2013). This update incorporates the most recent available data while also smoothing the potential variability from the discontinuity of resetting the bedroom ratios once every five years.
HUD establishes bedroom interval ranges based on an analysis of the range of such intervals for all areas with large enough samples to permit accurate bedroom ratio determinations. These ranges are: Efficiency FMRs are constrained to fall between 0.62 and 0.82 of the two-bedroom FMR; one-bedroom FMRs must be between 0.75 and 0.86 of the two-bedroom FMR; three-bedroom FMRs must be between 1.14 and 1.34 of the two-bedroom FMR; and, four-bedroom FMRs must be between 1.27 and 1.62 of the two-bedroom FMR. (The maximums for the three-bedroom and four-bedroom FMRs are irrespective of the adjustments discussed in the next paragraph.) HUD adjusts bedroom rents for a given FMR area if the differentials between bedroom-size FMRs were inconsistent with normally observed patterns (
HUD further adjusts the rents for three-bedroom and larger units to increase the likelihood that the largest families, who have the most difficulty in leasing units, will be successful in finding eligible program units. The adjustment adds 8.7 percent to the unadjusted three-bedroom FMR estimates and adds 7.7 percent to the unadjusted four-bedroom FMR estimates. The FMRs for unit sizes larger than four bedrooms are calculated by adding 15 percent to the four-bedroom FMR for each extra bedroom. For example, the FMR for a five-bedroom unit is 1.15 times the four-bedroom FMR, and the FMR for a six-bedroom unit is 1.30 times the four-bedroom FMR. FMRs for single-room occupancy units are 0.75 times the zero-bedroom (efficiency) FMR.
For low-population, nonmetropolitan counties with small or statistically insignificant data for any two of the three five-year ACS standard quality rents series used in the average, HUD uses state non-metropolitan data to determine bedroom ratios for each unit bedroom count. HUD made this adjustment to protect against unrealistically high or low FMRs due to insufficient sample sizes.
The FMR used to establish payment standard amounts for the rental of manufactured home spaces (pad rentals including utilities) in the HCV program is 40 percent of the FMR for a two-bedroom unit. HUD will consider modification of the manufactured home space FMRs where public comments present statistically valid survey data showing the 40th-percentile manufactured home space rent (including the cost of utilities) for the entire FMR area.
All approved exceptions to these rents based on survey data that were in effect in FY 2015 were updated to FY 2016 using the same data used to estimate the HCV program FMRs. If the result of this computation was higher than 40 percent of the new two-bedroom rent, the exception remains and is listed in Schedule D. The FMR area definitions used for the rental of manufactured home spaces are the same as the area definitions used for the other FMRs. No additional exception requests were received in the comments to the FY 2016 Proposed FMRs.
Small Area Fair Market Rents (SAFMRs) replace the use of FMRs for the HCV program as part of a court settlement by all public housing authorities (PHAs) in the Dallas, TX HMFA. SAFMRs are also used in HUD's demonstration program by five PHAs: The Housing Authority of the County of Cook (IL), the City of Long Beach (CA) Housing Authority, the Chattanooga (TN) Housing Authority, the Town of Mamaroneck (NY) Housing Authority, and the Laredo (TX) Housing Authority. The SAFMRs used by Dallas and the PHAs in the demonstration are listed in the Schedule B addendum.
SAFMRs are calculated using a rent ratio determined by dividing the median gross rent across all bedrooms for the small area (a ZIP code) by the similar median gross rent for the metropolitan area of the ZIP code. Similar to the bedroom ratios discussed in item G of section IV or this notice, HUD calculates the ZIP code rent ratio using an average of 2007-2011, 2008-2012, and 2009-2013 data. This average rent ratio is multiplied by the current two-bedroom
HUD also makes Small Area FMRs for all metropolitan areas available at
A total of 83 comments were received and are posted on the regulations.gov site (not all duplicate comments were posted) (
The use of FMRs in the calculation of public housing flat rents continues to garner comments. Small nonmetropolitan areas find the flat rents based on FMRs are too high for their market. Where the state minimum is used, a nonmetropolitan county does have the option of using its own, lower rent. A suggestion that FMRs be adjusted based on square footage of units is not feasible because the data on size of units is not available for all areas from a statistically reliable source. While FMRs are used in other HUD programs, the methodology used in determining FMRs and the publication of FMRs for comment is primarily in support of the Section 8 HCV program. Other HUD programs must rely on the current FMR methodology. The adjustment of flat rents by FMRs is an issue for the program staff in the Division of Housing Management and Occupancy of PIH. HUD's Office of Policy Development, and Research supports the program office by making the Small Area FMRs and the unadjusted rents available as alternatives to the FMR for setting Public Housing flat rents.
Many commenters oppose decreases of any level in the FMR, especially those commenters that operate programs that use FMRs but do not allow payment standard flexibility in applying FMRs, such as the Continuum of Care program and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program (LIHTC). Several comments requested that HUD hold the FY 2016 FMRs harmless, that is they wanted the FMR to remain at the FY 2015 level, or some earlier level if it would otherwise be lower. In addition to, or instead of, implementing a hold harmless policy, several comments asked HUD to limit annual increases and decreases of FMRs to five percent, or at the very least impose a hard floor of five percent on decreases. This inability to hold FMRs harmless at some previously higher level is especially difficult for LIHTC landlords and developers to understand because no such prohibition exists for the calculation of HUD's income limits which are also used in the rent calculation for these units. HUD has been able to use such measures in constraining income limit increases and decreases, but HUD is specifically precluded from incorporating these changes into the FMR methodology by the statutory language governing FMRs requiring the use of the most recent available data. As stated in previous FMR notices, HUD's HCV program counsel reviewed the statutory language governing the calculation of FMRs to determine if the Department has the authority to institute caps and floors on the amount the FMRs could change annually. Based on this review, HUD's program counsel issued a legal opinion that HUD CANNOT impose floors or caps in changes in FMRs because this would violate the portion of the statute that directs HUD to use the most current data available. According to the legal opinion, the statute must be changed before HUD can implement these types of caps and floors. No statutory changes regarding the use of the most recent available data have since been enacted; consequently, HUD does not have the authority to use a hold harmless policy or other policy which would permit HUD to impose caps and floors on FMR changes. HUD is required to use the most recent available data and FMRs must increase or decrease based on this data. Ignoring decreases or phasing decreases or increases in over several years would not fully implement FMRs based on the most recent available data.
The Department recognizes that significant variation in FMRs from year to year increases the administrative burden on all users of FMRs. HUD has made changes to the calculation methodology to attempt to quell this annual variation while comporting to the statutory requirement to use the most recent data available. For example, using averages of 3 years of five-year ACS data in the calculation of the bedroom ratios and the small area rent ratios were implemented to increase the stability of these components of the calculations while also incorporating the most recent data each year. Moving to a tighter statistical standard for use of ACS estimates (less than a 50 percent margin of error as opposed to different from 0) is also incorporated to lessen the variability from sampling error within the ACS while still taking advantage of annually updated information. HUD will continue to pursue strategies that increase the stability of the FMRs from year to year within the limitations of the current statutory framework.
Although there were several changes to the metropolitan area definitions for
Several PHAs with lower proposed FY 2016 FMRs relative to FY 2015 or earlier FMRs requested that HUD conduct a survey of rents for their FMR areas. As stated in the proposed FY 2016 FMR Notice, HUD does not have funds available to conduct surveys in FY 2016. While some areas provided data, the data could not be accepted as the basis for changing FMRs because it did not meet the threshold for representativeness and/or statistical reliability established for rental survey data to be used in FMR determinations. HUD may not use data from newspaper ads (or Craigslist) because these sources for rents do not represent actual contracted rents, nor can rent reasonableness studies be used as these typically do not sample units randomly. Other data provided may be acceptable, but the sources and method of collection must be identified. Data must be collected randomly and cover the entire rental stock within the FMR area including single-family units, not just large apartment projects. Single-family units and smaller apartment buildings are an important part of the rental market and cannot be ignored. HUD did receive notification that several PHAs in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas are conducting surveys and have sought guidance from HUD on the survey methodology. Any other PHAs interested in surveys to support changes in FMRs should review section VIII of this notice for further information regarding acceptable survey methodology.
For areas that are considering conducting their own surveys, HUD would caution them to explore all no-cost options as a means of alleviating problems they are having with low FMRs. HUD has experience conducting surveys in areas with low or no vacancy rates and this experience has shown that it is extremely difficult to capture accurate gross rent levels in tight markets. For that reason, HUD provides emergency exception payment standards up to 135 percent of the FMR for the Section 8 voucher program in areas impacted by natural resource exploration or in presidentially declared disaster areas. PHAs interested in applying for these exception payment standards should contact their local HUD field office. Other programs that use FMRs will have to pursue similar strategies such as exception payment standards or hold harmless provisions within the statutory and regulatory framework governing those programs.
HUD received a comment from the Inclusive Communities Project (ICP), regarding the Small Area FMRs in the Dallas, TX HUD Metro FMR Area. ICP used HUD's guidance on how to provide data-supported comments on the levels of Small Area FMRs using HUD's special tabulations of the distribution of gross rents by bedroom unit size for ZIP Code Tabulation Areas. HUD has reviewed the comment and has made the appropriate change to the final FY 2016 Small Area FMRs for the Dallas, TX HUD Metro FMR Area.
In accordance with 24 CFR 888.115, HUD has reviewed the public comments that were submitted by the due date and has adjusted the proposed FMRs accordingly. Furthermore, HUD has determined that there are no comments with “statistically valid rental survey data that justify the requested changes in metropolitan areas or non-metropolitan counties.” HUD's responses to all known comments received by the comment due date and a part of the notice record
Comment: FMR decreases do not reflect the current rental market; more recent data must be used for the determination of FMRs. Several of the areas expressing dissatisfaction with decreases, provided market studies, rent reasonableness findings, or rent data compiled from rents for large apartment projects that show that the rents in their area increased in the past year, while the FY 2016 FMRs show a decline from the FY 2015 FMRs. Over 30 comments from tenants, landlords, housing advocacy and development organizations and PHAs protested the reduction in the Oakland, CA metropolitan area that resulted from the replacement of a 2013 local survey with 2013 ACS one-year data. Their claim is that in such a tight rental market, as experienced in Oakland, even the relatively small decreases of less than two percent for efficiencies through three-bedroom units (four-bedroom FMRs decreased 10 percent compared with last year as a result of the bedroom ratio re-estimation), will hurt a program with huge waiting lists and low success rates. Most of these commenters requested that HUD revise the FY 2016 FMRs by using the 2014 ACS data (one year 2014 standard tabulations were made available on September 17, 2015).
HUD Response: FMRs are estimated rents, and can change from year-to-year in ways that are different from market rent changes or economic activity. Such a year-over-year comparison is especially invalid when data from a local survey is replaced with one-year ACS data, as is the case for Burlington, VT, Oakland, CA, and Santa Barbara, CA. When economic activity decreases, rents don't necessarily decrease and some increased economic activity that might put pressure on rents cannot be measured in real time. HUD is required to use the most current data available and this means that local surveys conducted in 2013 must be replaced by 2013 ACS data for areas with one-year ACS data. HUD is precluded from using sources of data that are not statistically reliable. Rent reasonableness studies are not subject to the same constraints on statistical reliability and cannot be used to alter FMRs.
HUD is unable to use the 2014 ACS data in the calculation of the FY 2016 FMRs. The standard tabulations of ACS data based on the 2014 data collection have not been completely released at this time. Furthermore, HUD cannot use the standard tabulations of ACS data to
1. Standard tabulations do not provide 40th percentile rent estimates.
2. Standard tabulations are not available for certain HUD Metropolitan FMR Areas.
3. Standard tabulations may not be filtered to eliminate substandard units or units likely to be subsidized with gross rents below HUD's Public Housing Cut Off Rent.
4. Standard tabulations do not have gross rents specific to recent movers.
Given the limitations of the data in the standard tabulations, HUD reviewed the available data to determine if any improvements to the FMR calculations in the Oakland, CA HUD Metro FMR area could be made. One possibility HUD considered was to replace the CPI based gross rent inflation factor capturing rent growth between 2013 and 2014. The CPI based inflation factor for gross rents used in the proposed FY 2016 FMR calculation is 5.33 percent. The change in the median gross rents measured for the Oakland-Haywood-Berkeley, CA Metropolitan Division, which comprised of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties—the same as the FMR area, between 2013 one-year ACS data and 2014 one-year ACS data is only 4.1. Consequently, incorporating the information from the standard tabulations of ACS data that are available now would LOWER the FY 2016 FMRs rather than raise them as the comments suggest.
FMRs cannot decrease in economic growth areas; some of these areas cannot manage the voucher program even with modest FMR increases. Several comments, even pertaining to FMR areas with decreases below five percent, or with modest increases, pressed for higher FY 2016 FMRs. Some of these areas had very tight markets and some of these areas already used payment standards at 110 percent of the FMRs. One commenter protested the retroactive effective date of October 1, 2015, which would not provide the time required to adjust payment standards.
In 2011, HUD solicited bidders to study the methodology used to conduct local area surveys of gross rents to determine if the Random Digit Dialing (RDD) methodology could be improved upon. The Department undertook this study due to the increasing costs and declining response rates associated with telephone surveys. Furthermore, the advent of the one-year ACS limits the need for surveys in large metropolitan areas. Based on this research, the Department decided that its survey methodology should be changed with mail surveys being the preferred method for conducting surveys, because of the lower cost and greater likelihood of survey responses. These surveys, however, take almost twice as long to conduct as prior survey methods took, and when response times are most critical, the Department may choose to conduct random digit dialing surveys as well, as the budget permits. Unfortunately, the anticipated budget does not permit HUD to conduct any surveys in FY 2016. The methodology for both types of surveys along with the survey instruments is posted on the HUD USER Web site, at the bottom of the FMR page in the section labeled “Fair Market Rent Surveys” at:
Other survey methodologies are acceptable in providing data to support comments if the survey methodology can provide statistically reliable, unbiased estimates of the gross rent. Survey samples should be randomly drawn from a complete list of rental units for the FMR area. If this is not feasible, the selected sample must be drawn to be statistically representative of the entire rental housing stock of the FMR area. Surveys must include units at all rent levels and be representative of structure type (including single-family, duplex, and other small rental properties), age of housing unit, and geographic location. The 2009-2013 five-year ACS data should be used as a means of verifying if a sample is representative of the FMR area's rental housing stock.
Most surveys cover only one- and two-bedroom units, which has statistical advantages because these are generally the most abundant rental units in an area. However in nonmetropolitan areas and some metropolitan areas, three-bedroom units are also surveyed because there are significant rental units at this size in the FMR area. If the survey is statistically acceptable, HUD will estimate FMRs for other bedroom sizes using the new ratios based on an average of 2007-2011, 2008-2012, and 2009-2013 five-year ACS data. A PHA or contractor that cannot obtain the recommended number of sample responses after reasonable efforts should consult with HUD before abandoning its survey; in such situations, HUD may find it appropriate to relax normal sample size requirements.
HUD will consider increasing manufactured home space FMRs where public comment demonstrates that 40 percent of the two-bedroom FMR is not adequate. In order to be accepted as a basis for revising the manufactured home space FMRs, comments must include a pad rental survey of all mobile home parks in the FMR area, identify the utilities included in each park's rental fee, and provide a copy of the applicable public housing authority's utility schedule.
As stated earlier in this Notice, HUD is required to use the most recent data available when calculating FMRs. Therefore, in order to re-evaluate an area's FMR, HUD requires more current rental market data than the 2013 ACS.
This Notice involves the establishment of fair market rent schedules, which do not constitute a development decision affecting the physical condition of specific project areas or building sites. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6), this Notice is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Accordingly, the Fair Market Rent Schedules, which will not be codified in 24 CFR part 888, are proposed to be amended as shown in the Appendix to this notice:
Schedules B and D—General Explanatory Notes
a. Metropolitan Areas—Most FMRs are market-wide rent estimates that are intended to provide housing opportunities throughout the geographic area in which rental-housing units are in direct competition. HUD is using the metropolitan CBSAs, which are made up of one or more counties, as defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), with some modifications. HUD is generally assigning separate FMRs to the component counties of CBSA Micropolitan Areas.
b. Modifications to OMB Definitions—Following OMB guidance, the estimation procedure for the FY 2016 FMRs incorporates the OMB definitions of metropolitan areas based on the CBSA standards as implemented with 2000 Census data and updated by the 2010 Census in February 23, 2013. The adjustments made to the 2000 definitions to separate subparts of these areas where FMRs or median incomes would otherwise change significantly are continued. To follow HUDs policy of providing FMRs at the smallest possible area of geography, no counties were added to existing metropolitan areas. All counties added to metropolitan areas will still be treated as separate counties. New multicounty metropolitan areas are not subdivided. All metropolitan areas that have at least one subarea will also receive a subarea, that is the rents from a county that is a subarea will not be used for the remaining metropolitan subarea rent determination. The specific counties and New England towns and cities within each state in MSAs and HMFAs were not changed by the February 28, 2013 OMB metropolitan area definitions. These areas are listed in Schedule B.
Schedule B shows the FMRs for zero-bedroom through four-bedroom units. The Schedule B addendum shows Small Area FMRs for all PHAs operating using Small Area FMRs. The FMRs for unit sizes larger than four bedrooms are calculated by adding 15 percent to the four-bedroom FMR for each extra bedroom. For example, the FMR for a five-bedroom unit is 1.15 times the four-bedroom FMR, and the FMR for a six-bedroom unit is 1.30 times the four-bedroom FMR. FMRs for single-room-occupancy (SRO) units are 0.75 times the zero-bedroom FMR.
a. The FMR areas in Schedule B are listed alphabetically by metropolitan FMR area and by nonmetropolitan county within each state. The exception FMRs for manufactured home spaces in Schedule D are listed alphabetically by state.
b. The constituent counties (and New England towns and cities) included in each metropolitan FMR area are listed immediately following the listings of the FMR dollar amounts. All constituent parts of a metropolitan FMR area that are in more than one state can be identified by consulting the listings for each applicable state.
c. Two nonmetropolitan counties are listed alphabetically on each line of the non-metropolitan county listings.
d. The New England towns and cities included in a nonmetropolitan county are listed immediately following the county name.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are proposing to revise regulations governing the exercise of non-Federal oil and gas rights in order to improve our ability to protect refuge resources, visitors, and the general public's health and safety from potential impacts associated with non-Federal oil and gas operations located within U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuge units. Non-Federal oil and gas development refers to oil and gas activities associated with any private, State, or tribally owned mineral interest where the surface estate is administered by the Service as part of the Refuge System. The existing non-Federal oil and gas regulations have remained unchanged for more than 50 years and provide vague guidance to staff and operators. This proposed rule would make the regulations consistent with existing laws, policies and industry practices. It is designed to provide regulatory clarity and guidance to oil and gas operators and refuge staff, provide a simple process for compliance, incorporate technological improvements in exploration and drilling technology, and ensure that non-Federal oil and gas operations are conducted in a manner that avoids or minimizes impacts to refuge resources.
Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before February 9, 2016. Comments on the information collection aspects of this rule must be received on or before January 11, 2016
•
•
Please indicate to which document, the proposed rule or the DEIS, your comments apply. We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
• Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 295-5806 (fax) or
• Service Information Collection Clearance Officer; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or
Scott Covington, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Natural Resources and Planning, MS: NWRS, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 22043; telephone 703-358-2427.
We are proposing to update the existing regulations at subpart C of part 29 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and propose new regulations as subpart D of 50 CFR part 29, which would govern the exercise of non-Federal oil and gas rights within refuge units, to improve the effectiveness of the regulations in protecting refuge resources and values, and to improve the clarity of the regulations for both operators and the Service.
Key components of the proposed rule include:
• A permitting process for new operations;
• A permitting process for well-plugging and reclamation for all operations;
• Information requirements for particular types of operations;
• Operating standards so that both the Service and the operator can readily identify what standards apply to particular operations;
• Fees for new access beyond that held as part of the operator's oil and gas right;
• Financial assurance (bonding);
• Penalty provisions;
• Clarification that the process for authorizing access to non-Federal oil and gas properties in Alaska will continue to be controlled by 43 CFR part 36, which implements provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act; and
• Codification of some existing agency policies and practices.
A detailed discussion of all proposed changes to the regulations is contained in the section-by-section analysis.
In 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report (GAO-03-517) to Congress highlighting the opportunities to improve management and oversight of oil and gas operations on National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) lands and waters. An update by GAO in 2007 (GAO-07-829R) reasserted the recommendation that the Service take the necessary steps to apply a consistent and reasonable set of regulatory and management controls over all oil and gas activities occurring on refuges to protect the public's surface interests. Other land management agencies have regulations that address oil and gas development for non-Federal subsurface interests, including the Department of the Interior's National Park Service (NPS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service. This proposed rule would address concerns highlighted in the GAO reports and bring the Service more in line with other Federal land management agencies.
Based on Service data from 2011, there are over 5,000 oil and gas wells on 107 refuges in a total of 599 refuge units. Of the wells present on refuges, 1,665 actively produce oil and gas. Based on the existence of split estates (where the Service owns the surface estate and another party owns the mineral estate), exploration and production already occurring on adjacent or nearby lands, and future increases in energy prices, non-Federal oil and gas operations within refuges potentially could affect many additional refuges. Because of the impacts of oil and gas operations, a rulemaking is necessary to create a consistent and reasonable set of regulatory management controls for non-Federal oil and gas operations on refuges.
In 1960, the Service promulgated the current regulations at 50 CFR 29.32 to govern the exercise of non-Federal mineral rights on NWRS lands and waters. These regulations have not been updated. These regulations outline a general policy to minimize impacts to refuge resources to the extent practicable from all activities associated with non-Federal mineral exploration and development where access is on, across, or through federally owned or controlled lands or waters of the NWRS. However, they have been ineffective at protecting refuge resources or providing operators explicit requirements for operating on refuge lands. The current regulations lack both a process and specific guidance for operators and refuge employees to plan efficient operations on refuges that minimize impacts to refuge resources. Similarly, existing Service policies related to exploring and developing non-Federal oil and gas rights under refuges, such as 612 FW 3, lack regulatory provisions needed to successfully protect refuge resources and provide sufficient guidance.
One of the principal recommendations of the 2003 GAO report was for the Service to clarify its regulatory authority over non-Federal oil and gas operations on NWRS lands. This rulemaking provides notice to the public that the authorities given to the Service by Congress include the authority to regulate the exercise of non-Federal oil and gas rights located within refuge units. Because the Service's current regulations from 1960 pre-date the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRSAA), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (NWRSIA) (16 U.S.C. 668dd
The authority of Congress to provide for the regulation of non-Federal oil and gas operations on NWRS lands is derived from the Property Clause of the United States Constitution (U.S. Const. art. IV, sec. 3). Specifically, the Service has been provided the statutory authority to manage Federal lands and resources under NWRSAA, as amended by the NWRSIA. In 1997, Congress enacted the NWRSIA, amending and building upon the NWRSAA in a manner that provided an organic act for the NWRS similar to those which exist for other public lands. Generally, in enacting the NWRSIA, Congress recognized that the Service needed additional guidance and authority to manage the NWRS.
The NWRSIA (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)) mandates the Secretary of the Interior, in administering the System, to:
• Provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats within the NWRS;
• Ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the NWRS are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans;
• Ensure that the mission of the NWRS described at 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) and the purposes of each refuge are carried out;
• Ensure effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation with owners of land adjoining refuges and the fish and wildlife agency of the States in which the units of the NWRS are located;
• Assist in the maintenance of adequate water quantity and water quality to fulfill the mission of the NWRS and the purposes of each refuge;
• Recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general public uses of the NWRS through which the American public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife;
• Ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses; and
• Monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge.
The NWRSIA also gave the Service new authority to promulgate regulations to carry out the NWRSAA.
Several recent Circuit Court decisions have held that this regulatory authority extends to non-Federal property interests within refuges. Although these cases did not directly address non-Federal mineral rights, nothing in these decisions would limit the Service's regulatory authority with respect to this form of property interest. In
. . . . We do conclude, however, that the Fish and Wildlife Service may legitimately exercise the sovereign police power of the federal government in regulating the easement. Section 668dd(d)(1)(B) delegates the power to the Secretary of the Interior (and the Fish and Wildlife Service) “under such regulations as he may prescribe,” to “permit the use of . . . any areas within the System for purposes such as . . . roads.” The question before us is whether the permissive power respecting roads authorized by the Refuge Act also includes the power to regulate a private easement over a road. We answer this question in the affirmative.
The Service is aware of the 1986 memorandum by the Associate Solicitor, Conservation and Wildlife (“1986 Opinion”) that interpreted that the Service, at that time, lacked the
The 1986 Opinion was also premised on a provision of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (MBCA), 16 U.S.C. 715e, which was amended in 1935 to provide:
The Secretary of the Interior may do all things and make all expenditures necessary to secure the safe title in the United States to the areas which may be acquired under this subchapter, but no payment shall be made for any such areas until the title thereto shall be satisfactory to the Attorney General or his designee, but the acquisition of such areas by the United States shall in no case be defeated because of rights-of-way, easements, and reservations which from their nature will in the opinion of the Secretary of the Interior in no manner interfere with the use of the areas so encumbered for the purposes of this subchapter, but such rights-of-way, easements, and reservations retained by the grantor or lessor from whom the United States receives title under this subchapter or any other Act for the acquisition by the Secretary of the Interior of areas for wildlife refuges shall be subject to rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior for the occupation, use, operation, protection, and administration of such areas as inviolate sanctuaries for migratory birds or as refuges for wildlife; and it shall be expressed in the deed or lease that the use, occupation, and operation of such rights-of-way, easements, and reservations shall be subordinate to and subject to such rules and regulations as are set out in such deed or lease or, if deemed necessary by the Secretary of the Interior, to such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by him from time to time.
The facts underlying the
Therefore, the Service believes it does have the authority to issue regulations to reasonably regulate both reserved and outstanding non-Federal oil and gas interests within the NWRS even when the right to regulate is not stated in the relevant deed. In our review of various deeds used by the Service to acquire the lands and interests in lands that make up the NWRS, we find many variations and that it is not possible to review or summarize all such provisions, or ensure that we are familiar with the circumstances surrounding each acquisition of NWRS lands, which did not include the mineral rights. As part of the pre-application meeting with the Service (see proposed § 29.91), and/or the submission of an application (see proposed § 29.94), the applicant should provide the Service with copies of any deeds or other relevant information which the applicant believes would control or otherwise limit the applicability of the regulations under this subpart to the applicant's operations. This process is intended to ensure that the Service both fully considers relevant deed provisions and any other information concerning the particular acquisitions before imposing requirements on the applicant's operations. The Service will respect any applicable deed conditions; however, these new regulatory requirements still apply to the extent that they do not conflict with such deed conditions, which we believe is the situation in most cases.
The Service will consider any comments on its authority to promulgate these regulations and address them in making its determinations for a final rule.
Non-Federal oil and gas rights exist within the NWRS in situations where the oil and gas interest has been severed from the estate acquired by the United States, either because:
• The United States acquired property from a grantor that did not own the oil and gas interest; or
• The United States acquired the property from a grantor that reserved the oil and gas interest from the conveyance.
Non-Federal oil and gas interests can be held by individuals, partnerships, for-profit corporations, nonprofit organizations, or States and their political subdivisions. Interests in non-Federal oil and gas are property rights that may only be taken for public use with payment of just compensation in accordance with the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This proposed rule is not intended to result in the taking of a property interest, but rather to impose reasonable regulations on activities that involve or affect federally owned lands and resources of the NWRS to avoid or minimize impacts from such activities to the maximum extent practicable.
These regulations do not apply to the development of the Federal mineral estate, including Federal oil and gas, which are administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), under the Mineral Leasing Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. In areas where oil and gas rights are owned by the United States, and leasing is authorized, the applicable regulations can be found at 43 CFR part 3100. There is a general prohibition to leasing Federal oil and gas on refuge lands (43 CFR 3101.5-1).
Examples of non-Federal oil and gas operations conducted on refuges include: Geophysical (seismic) exploration; exploratory well drilling; field development well drilling; oil and gas well production operations, including installation and operation of well flowlines and gathering lines; enhanced recovery operations; well plugging and abandonment; and site reclamation.
Oil and gas activities have the potential to adversely impact refuge resources in some or all of the following manners:
• Surface water quality degradation from spills, storm water runoff, erosion, and sedimentation;
• Soil and groundwater contamination from existing drilling mud pits, poorly constructed wells, improperly conducted enhanced recovery techniques, spills, and leaks;
• Air quality degradation from dust, natural gas flaring, hydrogen sulfide gas,
• Increased noise from seismic operations, blasting, construction, oil and gas drilling and production operations;
• Reduction of roadless areas on refuges;
• Noise and human presence effects on wildlife behavior, breeding, and habitat use;
• Disruption of wildlife migration routes;
• Adverse effects on sensitive and endangered species;
• Viewshed (an area of land, water, or other environmental element that is visible to the human eye from a fixed vantage point) intrusion by roads, traffic, drilling equipment, production equipment, pipelines, etc.;
• Night sky intrusion from artificial lighting and gas flares;
• Disturbance to archaeological and cultural resources associated with seismic exploration and road/site preparation, associated with maintenance activities, or by spills;
• Visitor safety hazards from equipment, pressurized vessels and lines, presence of hydrogen sulfide gas, and leaking oil and gas that can create explosion and fire hazards;
• Wildlife mortality from oil spills or entrapment in open-topped tanks or pits, poaching, and vehicle collisions;
• Fish kills from oil and oilfield brine spills; and
• Vegetation mortality from oilfield brine spills.
On February 24, 2014, we issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) (79 FR 10080) to assist us in developing this proposed rule. The ANPR had a 60-day comment period, ending April 25, 2014. On June 9, 2014, we reopened the comment period for another 30 days, ending July 9, 2014 (79 FR 32903). The ANPR requested the public to focus their comments on seven topics identified as major areas of concern:
(1) Plans of Operations and Special Use Permits;
(2) Operating Standards;
(3) Financial Assurances;
(4) Access Fees;
(5) Noncompliance;
(6) Existing Operations; and
(7) Impacts from the Proposed Rulemaking.
We received comments from unaffiliated private citizens (36), conservation organizations (14), State agencies (8), counties (2), Alaska Native Corporations (2), a tribal agency, oil and gas owners and operators (6), business associations (5), and a Federal agency, along with almost 80,000 form letter comments from members of two environmental organizations.
The majority of commenters were in favor of strengthening and expanding the regulations to better protect refuge resources and values. Some commenters requested that we not revise the existing regulations, while others questioned the legality of regulating non-Federal oil and gas operations on refuges.
More information on the ANPR and these comments is available at
We have prepared a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), which is being published for public comment simultaneously with this proposed rule and is available at
This proposed rule was developed in coordination with the NPS and as a result is consistent with its recently published proposed rule governing non-Federal oil and gas rights within the NPS (NPS 9B Regulations). An operator working on both NWRS and NPS lands would experience little difference in regulatory resource and use protections, regulatory structure based on performance standards, operations permit processes and requirements, monitoring and compliance, and other terms and conditions. However, there are some variations between the two proposed rules necessitated by differing authorities and missions and the scope of the two agencies' non-Federal oil and gas programs.
The proposed rule would generally require that operators receive permits, either special use permits or rights-of-way (ROW) permits, for new non-Federal oil and gas operations on NWRS lands; provide a regulatory framework to achieve the necessary protections for refuge resources; and improve regulatory consistency to the benefit of both refuge resources and oil and gas operators. The proposed rule contains performance-based standards that provide flexibility to resource managers and operators to use various and evolving technologies within different environments to achieve the standards. It establishes standards for surface use and site management, specific resource protections, spill prevention and response, waste management, and reclamation. Additionally, the proposed rule contains procedures for permit applications and Service review and approval. Finally, there are provisions for financial assurance (bonding), access fees, mitigation, change of operator, permit modification, and prohibitions and penalties. We incorporated public input received during the ANPR process to shape the proposed rule.
The proposed permitting process would allow the Service to ensure that refuge resources, as well as public health and safety, are protected to the greatest extent practicable. Under the proposed rule, the Service would require the following:
•
•
•
•
•
The Service believes that this proposed permitting process is the best way to manage oil and gas operations and protect refuge resources on NWRS lands. The most effective way for the Service to avoid or minimize impacts is by using time, place, and manner stipulations. The “place” factor in the “time, place, and manner” equation is often most important in terms of ability to protect an environmental resource. The risks created by a poorly selected location cannot easily be overcome with even the best operational methods. Conversely, proper site selection can do much to mitigate the effects of accidents or environmentally unsound practices. The “time” factor restricts the timing of operations to remove or minimize impacts on resources that are only seasonally present. The “manner” factor is the method in which oil and gas activities are conducted, using best management practices. Therefore, requiring a permit that contains such stipulations is the most effective way to avoid or minimize impacts of new operations.
Since new operations create the greatest additional impacts, proper site planning, timing restrictions, and best management practices can accomplish great improvements in resource protection. Existing operations with a special use or ROW permit would be allowed to continue their operations under the terms of that permit, because such stipulations have already been implemented in those permits. A permit requirement on an existing operation not currently under a permit could result in significant administrative and operational costs, similar to those of new operations, on both the Service and the operator. These costs could be disproportional to the environmental benefits gained where the operator's well has already been drilled and the area of operations (access route, well site, production facilities, and routes for gathering lines) has already been established. Many of the unnecessary impacts occurring from existing operations without permits can best be cost effectively addressed through ensuring adherence to existing Federal and State rules. Additionally, in this proposed rule, the Service would assimilate non-conflicting State oil and gas rules so that our Law Enforcement officers can ensure compliance with those requirements. This approach to permitting allows the Service to focus its limited time and resources on those new operations that create the highest level of incremental impacts. Also, by requiring all operations to have a permit for plugging and reclamation, it ensures rehabilitation of habitat damaged by all operations.
When a well is drilled outside a refuge or on a non-Federal inholding, impacts to refuge resources are avoided or minimized to a great extent. Therefore, the Service's approach of exempting downhole aspects of these operations that occur within a refuge from the proposed regulations is intended to provide an incentive for operators to use directional drilling from a surface location not administered by the Service in order to reach their oil and gas rights under the refuge-administered surface estate. However, anytime an operator needs to physically cross Service land for access, including access to a non-Federal surface location, such as an inholding, to conduct operations then the operator must comply with the applicable provisions of this subpart (in Alaska, 43 CFR 36.10), including obtaining an operations permit for new access or modification of existing access.
Refuges have sustained significant damages from leaks and spills, unplugged or inadequately plugged wells, abandoned equipment, and insufficient or no reclamation of refuge lands and resources. Avoidance of spills and similar problems is the best means of ensuring that taxpayers are not left with the costs of restoring refuge resources. By incorporating new operating standards into the regulations, this should ensure that any future damages to refuge land and resources are minimized to the greatest extent possible.
Regulations based on performance-based standards do not grow stale over time and provide flexibility to resource managers and operators to achieve standards across various environments using new and evolving technology. In contrast, prescriptive regulations define specific requirements of time, place, and manner without considering how these measures achieve a desired level of resource protection or how they may apply in different environments. The Service examined other Federal and State oil and gas regulations and determined that the performance-based standards approach provided the most efficient means of successfully avoiding or minimizing the effects of oil and gas operations on refuge resources and visitor uses. A one-size-fits-all (
In developing and analyzing the proposed rule and alternatives, the Service found that the preponderance of impacts and risks of impacts to refuge resources associated with exploration and development of oil and gas emanate from surface activities. This holds true for operations that include the use of hydraulic fracturing. The Service found that well drilling and production operations that include the use of hydraulic fracturing have the same types of surface activities (
The Service notes that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has recently promulgated regulations addressing hydraulic fracturing on Federal and Indian lands at 43 CFR part 3160 (80 FR 16128, March 26, 2015). We carefully considered the recently promulgated BLM oil and gas regulations on hydraulic fracturing. The agencies take different approaches to operating standards, because of their differing statutory bases for regulating the exercise of oil and gas rights. Specifically, the BLM has regulatory authority over the development of the Federal mineral estate, including Federal oil and gas resources under Federal and Indian lands. Whereas, the Service regulations address private property rights within refuge units and are based on the directive of the NWRSAA for the NWRS “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” Therefore, the Service's regulations are largely focused on avoiding or minimizing impacts to federally owned lands and resources of the NWRS to the maximum extent practicable by using the most technologically feasible, least damaging oil and gas development methods to protect refuge resources and uses.
As a result, BLM can and has appropriately set more prescriptive standards in its regulation, while the Service is proposing to set required non-prescriptive operating standards, similar to the NPS 9B regulations, which allow operators flexibility to design operations while still protecting refuge resources, uses, and visitor health and safety. For example, BLM's regulation at 43 CFR 3162.5-2 (Control of wells) sets a performance standard with regard to protection of usable quality water, and BLM also prescribes regulatory measures necessary to achieve and verify the performance standard (43 CFR 3162.3-3(e)). The Service's approach is to review an operator's submissions to determine if they are avoiding or minimizing impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and if not, to add terms and conditions in the permits to ensure that they do so.
The Service's goal, reflected in this proposed rule, is to complement State regulatory programs to the benefit of the surface estate and the resources for which we are entrusted, while not compromising the ability of operators to develop their resource. The Service and State oil and gas agencies have fundamentally different missions. The Service's legal mandate is to conserve fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations. In contrast, State oil and gas regulations typically focus on the protection of mineral rights and “conservation” of the oil and gas resources (
Most States provide for protection of surface and groundwater via well design requirements and oil pollution control measures. However, State programs vary widely with regard to protection of surface resources and surface use conflicts. In general, State oil and gas regulations do not address protections necessary for wildlife and its habitat. The Service conducted a review of State oil and gas regulations in 2013. Of the 43 States that have oil and gas regulations, all have requirements for plugging wells, but few have adequate requirements for removal of equipment and full reclamation of the site comparable to Service standards. Some State laws or regulations address impacts or damage to surface land owners; some do not. Some afford stronger protection to sensitive areas such as wildlife management areas; others do not. Some States address the use and closure of open pits; others do not. Bond requirements, oil spill cleanup and reporting, and fines differ considerably, as does the frequency of inspections of oil and gas exploration and production sites. Therefore, one of the issues that operators face is differing procedures and requirements from State to State. The proposed regulations are intended to provide a consistent set of procedures and operational standards for operations on refuges.
The intention of the Service's proposed regulations is to avoid or minimize potential procedural and operational duplication of State programs, while working cooperatively to achieve common objectives between the Service, States, and operators. For example, the proposed regulation includes a downhole operating standard for isolation and protection of subsurface (and surface) resources throughout the life of a well. The standard would inform the public and operators of the Service's responsibility for all its resources, including groundwater. However, the Service generally proposes not to otherwise regulate downhole activities. We welcome comments on whether, and to what extent, compliance with State regulations (as a general matter or with respect to particular States) is expected to provide adequate protection of groundwater and other subsurface resources. Meeting operating standards specific to downhole activities, by compliance with State regulation, industry operating guidelines, or Service-identified requirements, also serves to protect surface resources by reducing the risks associated with well control and well construction and maintenance.
In the context of enforcing State oil and gas regulations, the Service would focus on noncompliance issues that have the potential to adversely affect refuge resources and visitor uses by assimilating non-conflicting State oil and gas law into our prohibited acts and penalties. Assimilation allows us to enforce on refuges State oil and gas requirements as a matter of Federal law. States may not have enough inspectors to ensure companies are meeting State standards. Louisiana, the State with the most non-Federal oil and gas production on refuge lands, recently reported that it lacks an adequate number of inspectors and its inspection rate is too low. Under this proposed rule, the Service would work cooperatively with States to ensure that operators on refuges are meeting both Service and State regulations that pertain to oil and gas operations.
Proposed § 28.11 would be amended for a technical correction.
Proposed § 29.32 would be amended to clarify the scope and general policy of subpart D.
Proposed § 29.32(a) clarifies that this section is applicable to all NWRS non-Federal mineral rights owners within the National Wildlife Refuge System, excluding coordination areas, as defined in 50 CFR 25.12, and that it is the expectation of the Service that: All exploration, development, and production operations are conducted in a manner that avoids or minimizes impacts to refuge resources to the maximum extent practicable; operators comply with all applicable Federal and State laws; and all structures and equipment are removed when no longer necessary and the area restored to pre-operation conditions to the extent possible. Proposed § 29.32(b) states that nothing in the section will be applied to contravene or nullify rights vested in holders of mineral interests on refuge lands.
The existing regulations are inadequate to protect the resources the refuges were created to maintain. The proposed rule would clarify that the revised regulations will apply to all non-Federal oil and gas operations conducted on NWRS lands, excluding coordination areas, in order to protect federally owned or refuge-administered lands, waters, or wildlife resources; visitor uses or experiences; and visitor and employee health and safety, as Congress prescribed as the mission of the NWRS at 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4).
The purpose of proposed § 29.40(a) is to ensure operators use technologically feasible, least-damaging methods to remove non-Federal oil and gas resources from the subsurface of NWRS lands in order to protect and conserve refuge resources. Examples of technologically feasible, least-damaging methods include, but are not limited to, use of directionally drilling (slant drilling) to avoid surface impacts to important habitat, consolidating infrastructure (drilling multiple wells off a single pad) to reduce fragmentation, use of survey methods that do not require line of sight, or mat drilling in sensitive habitats.
Proposed § 29.40(b) provides that subpart D applies to operators who conduct or propose to conduct non-Federal oil and gas operations on the Service-administered surface estate of lands held in fee or less-than fee (excluding coordination areas) as well as to operations on any waters within the boundaries of the refuge. Because operations on and in the waters within refuge boundaries have the potential to broadly impact resources throughout the refuge, we are proposing that these regulations apply on and within waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States located within that unit, including navigable waters and areas within their ordinary reach (up to the mean high-water line in places subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, or up to the ordinary high-water mark in other places that are navigable), irrespective of ownership of submerged lands, tidelands or lowlands, and jurisdictional status. Further, we note that Congress specifically defined the term refuges in the NWRSIA as including “waters, or an interest in land and waters” at 16 U.S.C. 668ee(11).
Operations are defined in proposed § 29.50 as “all existing and proposed functions, work, and activities in connection with the exercise of oil or gas rights not owned by the United States and located or occurring within a refuge. Operations include, but are not limited to: Access by any means to or from an area of operations; construction; geological and geophysical exploration; drilling, well servicing, workover, or recompletion; production; enhanced recovery operations; gathering (including installation and maintenance of flowlines and gathering lines); storage, transport, or processing of petroleum products; earth moving; excavation; hauling; disposal; surveillance, inspection, monitoring, or maintenance of wells, facilities, and equipment; reclamation; road and pad building or improvement; shot hole and well plugging and abandonment, and reclamation; and all other activities incident to any of the foregoing. Operations do not include reconnaissance surveys as defined in this subpart or oil and gas pipelines that are located within a refuge under authority of a deeded or other right-of-way.”
These regulations are not intended to apply to operations on neighboring private lands or non-Federal surface estates within refuge boundaries. As discussed previously, if an operator must physically cross Service lands, the operator must obtain an operations permit and comply with other applicable provisions for that access. Use of aircraft, including, but not limited to, airplanes, helicopters, and unmanned aircraft vehicles that do not land on, or are not launched from, refuge-administered surface estate land or waters, is not subject to these regulations.
Proposed § 29.40(c) of this subpart would acknowledge that the intent of the proposed rule is to reasonably regulate such activities, but not to result in a taking of private property. Although we would place refuge-protecting mitigation measures on proposed operations, the Service does not intend that implementation of these regulations would result in a denial of access to prospective operators to exercise their non-Federal oil and gas rights. We would work with operators to ensure they have reasonable access to their operations and that refuge resources and values are protected without resulting in a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Proposed § 29.41 clarifies this subpart applies to operators if they conduct or propose to conduct a non-Federal oil or gas operation within a refuge.
Proposed § 29.42 clarifies what authorization is necessary to conduct operations on NWRS lands. The regulations at § 29.42(a) would require that all operators must demonstrate “up front” that they hold a valid existing right to conduct operations within a refuge. Until the operator demonstrates a valid existing right to conduct operations, the operator may not operate within a refuge and we will not undertake a formal review of the operator's permit application.
Proposed § 29.42(b) would require operators with a new oil and gas operation to obtain a temporary access permit to conduct reconnaissance surveys and/or an operations permit to conduct drilling or production within a refuge. This permit requirement would ensure that new operations on NWRS lands use best management practices and are conducted in a time, place, and manner that avoid or minimize potential impacts to refuge resources to the maximum extent practicable.
Proposed § 29.42(c) would clarify that for refuge units in Alaska, access to oil and gas rights within any refuge would continue to be governed by title XI of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA; 16 U.S.C. 410hh-410hh-5, 16 U.S.C. 3101
Proposed § 29.43 would authorize an operator who currently holds an approved permit to continue operations, subject to the applicable provisions of that permit, until they propose to conduct new operations or modify existing operations.
If an operator does not hold an existing special use permit but is conducting an operation prior to the effective date of the final rule, proposed § 29.44 would authorize the operator to continue with this operation in accordance with local, State, and Federal laws and regulations. However, these operations would need to comply with proposed §§ 29.60 through 29.63, which outline additional information requirements, prohibitions, and reclamation requirements, as well as the requirements that, before conducting a new operation or modifying a pre-existing operation, an operator must obtain an operations permit in accordance with §§ 29.90 through 29.97.
The proposed rule would establish and organize definitions for terms commonly used throughout the regulations.
Proposed § 29.60 defines pre-existing operations as those being conducted under local, State, and Federal laws and regulations and without an approved permit from the Service as of the effective date of a final rule, or prior to a boundary change or establishment of a new refuge unit. These operations may continue without an operations permit subject to the terms and conditions of this section. Proposed operations that become located within a refuge unit as the result of a boundary adjustment would be subject to the same process.
Proposed § 29.61(a)-(d) describes the information for pre-existing operations that would be required to be submitted to the Service to be in compliance with the rule. For a new oil and gas operation within a refuge, we would require an operator to submit the information necessary for us to approve the least-damaging locations for its access route, drilling site, production facilities, and gathering lines routes. However, for pre-existing operations, the operator's well has already been drilled and the area of operations (access route, well site, production facilities, and routes for gathering lines) has already been established. Therefore, under proposed § 29.61, within 90 days of the effective date of a final rule promulgating this subpart, operators would have to provide the Service with the information described in this section, including ownership documentation, contact information, a scaled map clearly delineating the existing area of operations, and copies of all relevant plans and permits. This information is needed for future monitoring of the pre-existing operations to ensure compliance with existing standards (local, State, Federal).
The proposed regulations at § 29.62(a) would require the operator to obtain an operations permit if the operator enters a new phase of operations, such as when an operator ends production operations and proceeds to well plugging and final reclamation. Proposed § 29.62(b) would require the operator to obtain an operations permit if the Service determines that the operator is modifying a pre-existing operation. Modifying is defined at proposed § 29.50 as “conducting new activities that are outside the scope of your existing operations in a manner that has additional impacts on refuge resources, visitor uses, refuge administration, or human health and safety beyond the scope, intensity, and/or duration of existing impacts. If an operator is considering altering their operation in a manner that may result in additional impacts to refuge resources, they should consult with the Service to determine whether proposed changes would constitute a modification. Examples of a modification include drilling additional wells from the same pad, creating additional surface disturbance (
Proposed § 29.63 ensures that pre-existing operations will be reclaimed to Service standards at proposed § 29.117(d). Operators must comply with the proposed reclamation requirements, including obtaining an operations permit for all reclamation activities.
Under proposed § 29.64, pre-existing operations would have to comply with the general terms and conditions at proposed §§ 29.120 and 29.121, as well as proposed §§ 29.170(a) (change of operator), 29.180-29.181 (well plugging), 29.190 (prohibited acts and penalties), and 29.200 (appeals). Suspensions would not be necessary if operators are meeting Service standards.
Proposed §§ 29.70-29.73 outline the process to obtain a temporary access permit. The temporary access permit is a special use permit that authorizes an operator to conduct reconnaissance surveys. Proposed § 29.71 identifies the information necessary for the Service to evaluate the operator's proposal to conduct reconnaissance surveys. This includes a brief description of intended operations so we can determine the operator's reconnaissance survey needs. Proposed § 29.72 describes the process for us to review the operator's temporary access permit application for completeness. Under proposed § 29.73, a temporary access permit would be issued for reconnaissance surveys for a period not to exceed 60 calendar days, but may be extended for a reasonable additional period when justified by an operator.
As discussed above, operators are exempt from the regulations if they directionally drill from a non-Federal surface location, including on non-Federal inholdings, and do not require physical access across Service lands to reach a bottom hole located within refuge boundaries. Proposed § 29.80 identifies the information an operator would be encouraged to submit to the Service to ensure that the Service has the necessary information to contact operators in case of an emergency or if unanticipated damages to refuge resources occur. If the operator needs to physically cross Service land for access to non-Federal lands, the operator would be required to comply with applicable provisions of this subpart only for that access, including obtaining an operations permit for any new access or a modification of existing access.
The proposed regulations require early collaboration in the planning process to provide operators guidance on information requirements, alternative areas of operations locations, and potential mitigation and avoidance measures.
The proposed rule at §§ 29.90-29.97 organizes information requirements for each type of operation. Further discussion of the specific information proposed to be collected can be found under the section below,
Proposed § 29.90 would require operators to submit an operations
Proposed § 29.91 urges operators to have a pre-application meeting with the Service to allow for an early exchange of information, including discussion of Service and operator concerns, as well as avoid delays in the application process. At this meeting, operators are encouraged to provide information on oil and gas ownership (including deeds or other relevant information which the applicant believes would control the applicability of the regulations under this subpart to the applicant's operations), operation schedules, contact information for company officials and their contractors, map of the proposed area of operations, description of access and transportation plans, and a description of the survey methodology for refuge resources, such as wildlife or cultural resources.
Proposed § 29.92 clarifies that operators do not need to include previously submitted information in their operations permit application, provided such information is on file with the Service, still current, and accurate. Operators may also submit copies of documents submitted to other agencies to meet the information requirements of their operations permit application.
Proposed § 29.93 clarifies that the operator only needs to submit the information for the operation for which they are seeking approval.
Proposed § 29.94 lists information requirements common to all operations, including information about existing conditions of the area of operations, proposed new surface uses, use of water, management of waste including flowback fluids from hydraulic fracturing operations, mitigation actions, alternatives considered, a spill control and emergency preparedness plan, and proposed reclamation.
Proposed § 29.95 identifies the additional information a geophysical operator would need to submit to the Service.
Proposed § 29.96 identifies the additional information a drilling operator would need to submit to the Service.
Proposed § 29.97 identifies the additional information a production operator would need to submit to the Service.
The proposed regulations at §§ 29.100-29.104 establish a two-stage permit application review process (an initial review and a formal review), provide realistic timeframes to provide notice back to an operator, and consolidate the final decisions the Service can make on an operator's permit application.
Proposed § 29.100 provides general information about how the Service will review an operator's application, which is an initial review to ensure that information is complete followed by formal review. Proposed § 29.101 describes the Service's initial review of an operator's permit application. During initial review, the Service would determine whether the applicant has supplied all information necessary for the Service to evaluate the operation's potential effects to federally owned or administered lands, waters, or resources of Service units; visitor uses or experiences; or visitor or employee health and safety. The Service would respond to an applicant within 30 days and state whether the information contained in the permit application is complete, identify the additional information required for the application to be complete, or notify the applicant that the Service needs more time to complete review. Once a permit application is complete, the Service conducts a formal review. For operators accessing oil and gas rights within Alaska refuges, proposed § 29.101(c) ensures that the regulations under title XI of ANILCA apply.
During the formal review process, under proposed §§ 29.102-29.103, the Service would evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed operations on refuge resources in compliance with applicable Federal laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321
Operators conducting non-Federal oil and gas operations in refuge units must also comply with all applicable non-conflicting State and local laws (proposed 50 CFR 29.120). As discussed above, it is the policy of the Service to be consistent with and complementary to State law to the maximum extent possible. Operators would still be required to obtain State-issued permits where applicable.
Additionally, proposed § 29.103(a) requires that, before approving an operations permit, the Service determine that the operator will use technologically feasible, least-damaging methods that provide for protection of the refuge's resources and public health and safety.
Proposed § 29.103(b) includes two prerequisites to approval: (1) Submittal of adequate financial assurance, and (2) proof of adequate liability insurance.
Proposed § 29.104 describes the actions the Service will take on the operations permit application. Proposed § 29.104(a) establishes a general 180-day timeframe to complete its formal review. These decisions require time to adequately analyze an operator's proposal, work with the operator on a design that incorporates acceptable avoidance and mitigation measures, and compliance with the associated Federal statutory responsibilities such as NEPA, ESA, and NHPA. The proposed regulations would allow for a longer period of time, if the parties agree to it, or if the Service determines that it needs more time to comply with applicable laws, executive orders, and regulations. The Service seeks comment on whether 180 days is reasonable and any incremental impacts on operators.
For operations that need to access inholdings in Alaska, proposed § 29.104(b) provides the timelines for ANILCA title XI/Access (43 CFR part 36).
Proposed § 29.104(c) would establish two final actions: (1) Approved, with or without conditions; or (2) Denied, and the justification for the denial. The Service would notify the operator in writing of the final action. If approved, this written notification constitutes the Service's authorization to conduct activities.
Proposed §§ 29.110-29.119 would clarify the purpose and function of operating standards. As discussed above, the Service would set performance-based operating standards to allow operators the flexibility to design their proposed operation using the latest technological innovations with an overall objective of using technologically feasible, least-damaging methods that will best protect refuge
The proposed rule would organize operating standards into the following categories: §§ 29.111 through 29.116 are operating standards that apply to all operations; § 29.117 contains operating standards that apply to reclamation; § 29.118 contains operating standards that apply to geophysical operations; and § 29.119 contains operating standards that apply to drilling and production operations, including enhanced recovery operations. Organizing the standards in this manner would allow the Service and the operator to readily understand which operating standards are applicable to the particular type of proposed operation.
Proposed § 29.111 addresses general facility design and management standards. These include the extent of surface disturbance, spill control, waste management, air emissions, and control of noxious and invasive species.
Proposed § 29.111(a) would ensure that either existing or newly created surface disturbance is kept to the minimum necessary for the safe conduct of operations.
Proposed § 29.111(b) would require installation and maintenance of secondary containment for all equipment and facilities using or containing contaminating substances such as oil, brine, formation water, or well stimulation chemicals. This could include constructing dikes around tank batteries to contain spills, fencing off the area to exclude livestock and large wildlife to prevent them from rubbing against valves or pipes and causing spills, stormproofing buildings used for storing hazardous chemicals, or using containment tubs or trays underneath chemical containers to catch drips or spills.
Proposed § 29.111(c) would require maintaining waste in as small an area as feasible. This could include a focus on practices that minimize the generation of waste, but could also include a waste containment system, waste disposal schedule, and identification of responsible parties if waste is not properly confined.
Proposed § 29.111(d) would require adherence to all State and Federal air quality standards.
Proposed § 29.111(e) would require operators to construct, maintain, and use roads to minimize fugitive dust emissions. Many methods are available to minimize fugitive dust emissions, such as vehicle speed limits (< 25 mph), applying water or other refuge-approved dust control treatment, and constructing roads to a minimum refuge-approved design standard.
Proposed § 29.111(f) would require operators to minimize emissions of air pollutants and releases or flaring of gas. Some States require additional air quality devices be installed (
Proposed § 29.111(g) would require operators to minimize leakage of air pollutants and hydrocarbons to the atmosphere.
Proposed § 29.111(h) would require operators to control the introduction of noxious and invasive species on their area of operations. This could include inspecting all vehicles prior to their arrival on the refuge, removing noxious weeds from equipment and vehicles, using only approved native species in reclamation seed mixes, and immediately implementing interim reclamation in order to minimize the potential for the spread of invasive species in disturbed soils.
Proposed § 29.111(i) would require operators to maintain a safe distance (
The Service is proposing specific standards at § 29.112 that would address fish and wildlife protection.
Proposed § 29.112(a) would require that operators and contractors abide by all refuge regulations to protect fish, wildlife, and plants. Our regulations in title 50, chapter I, subchapter C of the Code of Federal Regulations provide general and specific refuge regulations, such as hunting and fishing, safety, and recreation, among others.
Proposed § 29.112(b) would require that operators, as well as their employees and contractors, be educated and informed by refuge staff of applicable wildlife protection practices. This would include information such as obeying all posted speed limits, avoiding closed refuge areas, and training staff on what constitutes wildlife violations.
Proposed § 29.112(c) would require operators to provide a safe environment for fish and wildlife free from physical and chemical hazards. This could include maintaining equipment in good condition, immediately reporting and cleaning all spills, and proactive management to prevent spills.
Proposed § 29.112(d) would require that operators comply with all seasonal and other restrictive wildlife buffers. This could include following timing buffers (
The Service is proposing specific standards at § 29.113 that would address hydrologic resources.
Proposed § 29.113(a) would require operators to maintain a safe distance (
Proposed § 29.113(b) would require operators to construct facilities in a manner to maintain hydrologic movement and function. This could include installing structures to divert runoff away from well sites, not siting facilities in floodplains, or installing culverts in access roads to maintain natural drainage patterns.
Proposed § 29.113(c) would require operators to maintain the existing water quality of the site. This could include applying spill prevention, containment, and countermeasures (SPCC) practices to prevent chemical, oil, or brine leaks and spills from contaminating surface water, and implementing erosion control measures to prevent or minimize siltation of surface waters.
Proposed § 29.113(d) would require operators to maintain natural levels of erosion and sedimentation. This could include recontouring and reseeding disturbed areas, implementing larger buffers away from waterways, building roads and pads according to refuge specifications, and installing water bars and right-sized culverts.
The Service is proposing specific standards at § 29.114 that would address safety.
Proposed § 29.114(a) would require operators to maintain their area of operations in a manner that avoids or minimizes the cause or spread of fire. This could include maintaining fire breaks around facilities and equipment, and not driving across grassy areas during hot, dry conditions.
Proposed § 29.114(b) would require operators to maintain all facilities and operations to prevent physical and chemical hazards to refuge resources, visitors, and employees. This could include storing chemicals onsite, locking storage buildings and sheds, and substituting hazardous chemicals with non-hazardous ones.
Proposed § 29.114(c) would require operators to provide site security to prevent hazardous conditions from affecting visitors or employees. This could include fencing around the facility, pump jack, well pad, or well head; locking buildings; or posting guards.
The Service is proposing specific standards at § 29.115 that would address lighting and visual impacts.
Proposed § 29.115(a) would require operators to reduce effects to night skies by minimizing light emissions from their operations. This could include using the minimum lighting necessary for site safety, and directing lights downward to minimize the effect on night skies.
Proposed § 29.115(b) would require operators to minimize the contrast between their facilities and the surrounding environment by blending their operations with the background to minimize their appearance. This could include painting facilities, equipment, and buildings to blend with the background; siting facilities in low areas beyond hills or rises; using topography to help screen facilities; and using road and well pad materials similar in composition and color to minimize their appearance (
The Service is proposing specific standards at § 29.116 that would address noise reduction. This could include sound abatement techniques, such as hospital-grade mufflers, constructing sound buffers (
The Service is proposing specific standards at proposed § 29.117 for reclamation and protection measures required of all operators.
Proposed § 29.117(a) would require the operator to promptly clean up and remove contaminating substances from their area of operations in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws.
Proposed § 29.117(b) would require partial reclamation of areas no longer necessary for their operations. It would also require an operator to initiate reclamation within 6 months of completion of authorized operations.
Proposed § 29.117(c) would require an operator to protect all survey markers.
Proposed § 29.117(d) provides steps that must be accomplished to re-establish the ecological function of the site.
The Service is proposing specific standards at proposed § 29.118 for operators proposing geophysical operations.
Proposed § 29.118(a) directs operators to use surveying methods that minimize the need for vegetative trimming and removal. This could include avoiding use of line-of-sight surveying methods.
Proposed § 29.118(b) protects pipelines, telephone lines, railroad tracks, roads, power lines, water wells, oil and gas wells, oil- and gas-production facilities, and buildings. This could include using industry-accepted minimum safe-offset distances.
Proposed § 29.118(c) directs operators to match equipment to the environment to minimize impacts. This could include using boat-mounted drilling rigs in marshy habitats, putting helicopter equipment into areas where impacts would be difficult to mitigate with tracked vehicles, or conducting operations when ground is frozen or sensitive species are not present.
Proposed § 29.118(d) describes how operators are to reclaim sites when using shot holes as the energy source. This could include using biodegradable charges, plugging shot holes, and leaving sites clean without impeding surface reclamation or posing a hazard.
Proposed § 29.118(e) clarifies that, for geological and geophysical exploration for oil and gas within the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the regulations at 50 CFR part 37 apply.
The Service is proposing specific standards at proposed § 29.119 for operators proposing drilling and production operations.
Proposed § 29.119(a) establishes drilling standards, including waste management, such as using containerized mud systems, avoiding earthen pits, and using sound well control equipment and practices. Well design and operation must provide for isolation and protection of usable water zones. Drill cuttings must be disposed of at an approved site off-refuge.
Proposed § 29.119(b) establishes standards for production operations including monitoring and maintenance of equipment, proper site security, and removal of unnecessary equipment.
The Service proposes a “General Terms and Conditions” section to summarize those terms and conditions that apply to all operations.
Proposed § 29.120(a) outlines the operating standards that all operators must comply with and states that those standards for new operations would be incorporated in the terms and conditions of their operations permit. This section also notifies an operator that violation of these terms and conditions can lead to fines and/or prosecution.
The proposed § 29.120(b) holds operator's contractors or subcontractors accountable for compliance with all requirements of this subpart.
Under proposed § 29.120(c), the Service would retain a right to charge fees for processing and administering permit applications if they prove to be a significant workload. The Service may still require reimbursement for costs incurred in processing applications, whether or not the application is withdrawn or a permit is issued.
Proposed § 29.120(d) restricts the use of surface water or groundwater on NWRS lands. If not covered by a State-held water right, any use of water within a refuge must be approved by the Service upon the Service's determination that it will not impair any refuge resource or use.
Proposed § 29.120(e) would require operators to provide a statement under penalty of perjury, signed by an official authorized to legally bind the company, that the operations will comply with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations and that the information provided to the Service is true and correct.
Proposed § 29.120(f) would require an operator to indemnify and hold harmless the United States and its employees from all liability resulting from activities conducted under an operations permit.
Proposed § 29.120(g) would require an operator to take all reasonable precautions to avoid, minimize, rectify, or reduce overall impacts of the proposed operations. The operator may be required to mitigate for any impacts to refuge resources and lost uses by creating or restoring habitat, or providing other forms of compensation under applicable State laws.
Proposed § 29.120(h) holds operators responsible for unauthorized or unanticipated damages because of their operations, and actions of their employees or contractors, and reclamation of damages caused by operations as a result of weather, fire, earthquakes, or similar uncontrolled actions. For example, an operator would remain responsible for removing a tank from a marsh after a hurricane blows it off site.
Because monitoring and reporting requirements apply, in varying degrees, to all operations, the Service is proposing to include monitoring and reporting requirements under general terms and conditions at proposed § 29.121.
Proposed § 29.121(a) would require an operator to provide the Service access to
Proposed § 29.121(b) would allow the Service to require that operators hire third-party contractors (third-party monitor) when necessary to ensure compliance and protect refuge resources and values. The use of third-party monitors helps ensure that the Service receives unbiased, reliable, and timely monitoring information demonstrating an operator's compliance with its permit. This proposed section also describes the criteria that the Service would consider when making the decision to require an operator to pay for a third-party monitor. The criteria could include an operator's proposal for self-monitoring. The third-party monitor would report directly to the Service to ensure oversight and accountability and prevent the appearance of a conflict of interest. Use of third-party monitors is a common industry practice.
Proposed § 29.121(c) would require operators to report any injuries to or mortality of fish, wildlife, or endangered or threatened plants resulting from their operations to the Service within 24 hours of any incident. Such occurrences, regardless of the context, should be reported as soon as possible, but no later than 24 hours after the incident. This could include a gas release resulting in wildlife mortality, collisions with company vehicles, or entrapment in a facility or on a well pad. This requirement is in addition to any report required by other applicable Federal or State laws.
Proposed § 29.121(d) would require operators to report any accidents involving serious personal injury or death, and of any fires or spills on the site immediately after the accident occurs. Operators must also provide a full written report to the Service within 90 days of the incident explaining what happened, why it happened, who was involved, the results, and how the company intends to prevent similar incidents in the future. This requirement is in addition to any report required by other applicable Federal or State laws.
Proposed § 29.121(e) would require that the operator submit any information requested by the Service that is necessary to verify compliance with either a provision of the operations permit or this subpart. To ease any burden, the proposed rule would allow an operator to submit reports that the operator has already submitted to a State or other Federal agency to meet this reporting requirement.
Proposed § 29.121(f) would require that the operator provide public disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing operations using the FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry or another approved database system.
Proposed § 29.122 provides that an operations permit is valid for the period of the operation. However, a permit may be modified by an operator or the Service, as outlined in proposed § 29.160.
Operators may need to cross Federal lands where they have no pre-existing property or other legal right to do so. Under proposed § 29.140, operators would have to obtain permission from the Service for such access across NWRS lands. Proposed § 29.140(b) clarifies that access in Alaska is governed by regulations and standards at 43 CFR part 36. This would include access fees and violations of permits issued under those regulations. Proposed § 29.141 provides that the Service may charge the operator a fee for such additional access. The NPS, Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), as well as private landowners, already charge similar fees for such access. Such fees are based on the fair market value of the use of Federal property outside the scope of their property right.
Proposed § 29.141(a) would require operators to pay a fee for new access (
Under proposed § 29.141(b), the Service would retain the right to charge a fee for access on an existing road consistent with a posted fee schedule. This fee would be used to reflect any increased maintenance costs on these roads when compared to the normal use by the general public or refuge staff, such as purchasing fuel for a road grader, gravel for a road, or maintaining refuge equipment used in road maintenance.
Proposed § 29.141(c) would give the Service the ability to allow the operator to undertake in-kind services to offset fees to the extent permitted by law.
Proposed § 29.142 would clarify that, while the Service will not charge an operator a fee for emergency access to their operation, the operator would remain liable for any damages caused to refuge resources as a result of such emergency access.
The current regulations at 50 CFR 29.32 do not require financial assurance for well plugging and reclamation. In the event of a company default, the Service must find the funds to plug wells and restore the site (
Proposed § 29.151(a) would make the financial assurance amount equal to the cost of plugging and abandonment and reclamation, as conducted by a third-party contractor. It also provides that, if the plugging and abandonment and reclamation costs exceed the operator's bond amount, they are obligated to pay that difference.
Proposed § 29.151(b) provides a method to reduce the operator's bond amount if the operator provides in-kind reclamation.
Proposed § 29.152 allows the Service to adjust the amount of financial assurance due to changed conditions or circumstances that increase or decrease the estimated costs of reclamation. For instance, if an operator elects to conduct interim reclamation, the bond amount for full reclamation could be reduced based on the amount of the site reclaimed. On the other hand, if the operator modifies their operations in a manner that would make the cost of plugging or reclamation more expensive, the bond amount could be increased.
Proposed § 29.153 describes the conditions under which the Service would release the financial assurance. The Service will release an operator's bond if they have met all applicable reclamation operating standards, as well as any additional conditions outlined in their operations permit.
Proposed § 29.154 describes those circumstances that would result in forfeiture. Failure to comply with any provision of the operations permit could result in forfeiture of the operator's financial assurance to the extent it would cost the Service to remedy the noncompliance. Also, under this provision, if the operator forfeits their financial assurance, the Service may prohibit the operator from removing all structures, equipment, or other material from the operator's area of operations; require the operator to secure the operations site and take any other necessary steps to protect refuge lands or resources, visitor uses, and visitor or employee health and safety; and/or suspend review of any pending permit applications until the Service determines that all violations have been resolved.
The objectives of proposed § 29.160 are to provide the Service or operator a method to modify an operations permit to address new or unanticipated changes in operational or environmental conditions. Any modification to an approved permit must meet the same criteria that apply to an operations permit as outlined in the application review process (proposed §§ 29.100 through 29.104). Examples of a modification could include drilling additional wells from the same pad, creating additional surface disturbance (expanding the footprint of a well pad, realigning a road), or converting a natural gas well into a wastewater disposal well so that the resulting modification has notable impacts to the refuge resource.
Minor actions that are not specifically addressed in the operations permit but are within the scope of the impacts analyzed would not be considered modifications for the purpose of this section. Examples of such minor actions would include repositioning of surface facilities within the permitted area of operations, minor changes in color schemes, or non-routine maintenance actions.
A change of operator occurs anytime an entity exercising non-Federal oil and gas rights transfers those rights to another party. However, a transfer of stock or change in the membership of the Board of Directors is not by itself a transfer subject to Service approval to which this provision applies. We encourage the transferring party, as well as new operators, to consult with the refuge manager prior to transfer of operations to facilitate the transition.
Proposed § 29.170 outlines the steps the operator must take if they are the transferring party.
Under proposed § 29.170(a), if an operator's operations are not under a Service-issued permit, the operator must provide the Service within 30 calendar days of the transfer the contact information of the party to whom the operator transferred their operation, the effective date of the transfer, and a description of the rights transferred. The operator must also provide written acknowledgement from the new operator that the contents of the notification are true and correct.
Under proposed § 29.170(b), if operations are being conducted under a Service-issued permit, in addition to the notification requirements above, the operator remains responsible for compliance with their operations permit until the new operator agrees in writing to adopt the permit with all its terms and conditions. In addition, if financial assurance is a component of the permit, the Service will retain the financial assurance until the new operator replaces it.
Proposed § 29.171 describes the responsibilities of the new operator.
Proposed § 29.171(a) states that, when pre-existing operations are transferred to a new operator, the new operator may continue operating under the same conditions as the previous operator, but within 30 calendar days from the date of the transfer, would have to provide to the Service its right-to-operate documentation and company contact information.
Proposed § 29.171(b) states that, if operations being conducted under a Service-issued permit are transferred to a new operator, the new operator would need to agree in writing to conduct operations in accordance with all terms and conditions of the previous operator's permit and file any financial assurance required under the permit with the Service.
Under proposed § 29.171(c), new operators have the ability to propose modifications to operations transferred to them as outlined in § 29.160.
The proposed procedures are consistent with the way many States approach the issue of inactive wells, and recognize that certain economic or logistical reasons exist to justify maintenance of wells in shut-in status for extended periods of time. Rather than a “produce or plug” policy, the proposed regulations provide assurance that shut-in wells are maintained in an environmentally sound and safe manner.
Proposed § 29.180 would require operators to plug a well within 60 days after cessation of drilling operations (when no further action has been taken); or within a year of continuous inactivity after completion of production operations; or after expiration of the period approved in the operations permit to maintain the well in shut-in status.
Under proposed § 29.181, operators would be able to seek an extension to the plugging requirement by applying for an operations permit or modification to existing operations permit to maintain a well in shut-in status for up to 5 years. The operator must: Describe why drilling or production operations have ceased; provide a reasonable future use of the well; demonstrate mechanical integrity of the well; and follow maintenance requirements.
Proposed § 29.190 provides notices to operators of the prohibited acts that would constitute a violation of these regulations. This list is in addition to general prohibited acts for members of the public while on NWRS lands outlined at 50 CFR part 27. Prohibited acts listed in proposed § 29.190 include operating in violation of terms or conditions of an operations permit under § 29.43; damaging Federal property; conducting operations without Service authorization; failure to comply with suspension or revocation orders; and failure to comply with local, State, and Federal statutes or regulations.
Proposed §§ 29.191-29.192 would give the Service the discretion to take various enforcement actions if the operator engages in a prohibited act, including fines, imprisonment, and/or suspension or revocation of the right to operate an operation. In order to protect refuge resources, the Service may refrain from processing an applicant's permit if the applicant has not taken action elsewhere to remedy severe and substantial violations within the NWRS. These new provisions do not affect other regulatory provisions that authorize termination of a permit for noncompliance under 50 CFR 25.43, or the general penalty provisions under 50 CFR 28.31.
This section would provide that the operator has the right to appeal a decision through the process outlined in current regulations at 50 CFR 25.45. For ROWs, appeals would still be governed by 50 CFR 29.22; in Alaska, appeals would still be governed by 43 CFR 36.8. Under the provisions of 50 CFR 25.45, the operator has 20 days after notification of any adverse decision to respond. The operator shall be notified within 20 days after receipt of their response of the final decision. If the Service intends to proceed with the proposed action, the operator shall have 30 days from the final decision to file an appeal to the project leader (
This section would offer information on how the public can learn about oil and gas activities on refuge lands. The proposed rule provides the ability for an operator to protect proprietary or confidential information from disclosure to the public. Operators need to clearly mark those documents that they wish to protect from public disclosure as “proprietary or confidential information” such that these documents are readily identifiable by the Service decision maker. The Service has also included proposed provisions that allow an operator engaged in hydraulic fracturing operations or other operations involving the use of chemicals to withhold chemical formulations that are deemed to be a trade secret.
This section would provide information on Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the collection of information set forth in these regulations.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this proposed rule is significant, because it may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive order.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements. As noted above, we have carefully considered both the NPS's proposed amendments to the 9B regulations and the recent BLM regulations related to hydraulic fracturing, to ensure consistency to the greatest extent possible. The Service is aware of the current litigation concerning BLM's final hydraulic fracturing rule,
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
We certify that, if promulgated as proposed, this rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601
This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule:
(a) Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
(b) Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and
(c) Would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
These conclusions are based on the cost-benefit and regulatory flexibility analysis found in the report entitled Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rulemaking Economic Analysis, which can be viewed at
This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule would not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. It addresses use of refuge lands, and
This proposed rule is not intended to result in the taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under Executive Order 12630. The provisions of this proposed rule would afford access to operators exercising non-Federal mineral rights under reasonable regulation. No other private property is affected. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, the proposed rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. It addresses use of refuge lands, and would impose no requirements on other agencies or governments. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This proposed rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this proposed rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes, but we opened consultation under the Department's tribal consultation policy with all interested tribes.
This proposed rule contains a collection of information that we have submitted to OMB for approval under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
We are proposing to collect the following information associated with non-Federal oil and gas operations on National Wildlife Refuge System lands. Operators do not need to resubmit information that is already on file with the Service, provided the information is still current and accurate. Documents and materials submitted to other Federal and State agencies may be submitted, if they meet the specific requirements of the Service.
• Documentation of the right to operate within the refuge.
• Contact information (names, phone numbers, and addresses) of the primary company representative; the representative responsible for field supervision; and the representative responsible for emergency response.
• Scaled map clearly delineating the existing area of operations.
• Copies of all plans and permits required by local, State, and Federal agencies.
• Contact information (name, legal address, and telephone number) for the person(s) responsible for the overall management of the proposed operations.
• Documentation demonstrating the right to operate within the refuge.
• Name, legal address, telephone number, and qualifications of all specialists responsible for conducting the reconnaissance surveys. (Only required if the assistants/subcontractors/subpermittees will be operating on the refuge without the permittee being present.)
• Brief description of the intended operation so that we can determine reconnaissance survey needs.
• Description of the survey methods that will be used to identify the natural and cultural resources.
• Location map (to-scale and determined by us to be acceptable) delineating the proposed reconnaissance survey area in relation to the refuge boundary and the proposed area of operations.
• Description of proposed means of access and routes for conducting the reconnaissance surveys.
• Documentation demonstrating the right to operate within the refuge.
• An overview of the proposed operation and timing.
• Contact information (name, legal address, and telephone number) for the person(s) responsible for the overall management of the proposed operations.
• Documentation demonstrating the right to operate within the refuge.
• Description of the natural features of the proposed area of operations, such as: Streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands (including estimated depths to the top and bottom of zones of usable water); topographic relief; and areas that the Service has indicated are sensitive.
• Locations of existing roads, trails, railroad tracks, pipeline rights-of-way, pads, and other disturbed areas.
• Locations of existing structures that the operations could affect, including buildings; pipelines; oil and gas wells including both producing and plugged and abandoned wells; injection wells; freshwater wells; underground and overhead electrical lines; and other utility lines.
• Descriptions of the natural resource and cultural resource survey reports for the proposed area of operations.
• Location maps (to-scale and determined by us to be acceptable) that clearly identify:
(1) Proposed area of operations, existing conditions, and proposed new surface uses, including the boundaries of each of the oil and gas tracts in relation to the proposed operations and the relevant refuge boundary.
(2) Proposed access routes of new surface disturbances as determined by a location survey.
(3) Location of all support facilities, including those for transportation (
• Method and diagrams (including cross sections) of any proposed pad construction, road construction, cut-and-fill areas, and surface maintenance, including erosion control.
• Number and types of equipment and vehicles, including an estimate of vehicular round trips associated with the operation.
• Estimated timetable for the proposed operations, including any operational timing constraints.
• Type and extent of security measures proposed at the area of operation.
• Power sources and their transmission systems for the proposed operations.
• Types and quantities of all solid and liquid waste generated and the proposed methods of storage, handling, and disposal.
• Source, quantity, access route, and transportation/conveyance method for all water to be used in operations, including hydraulic fracturing, and estimates of any anticipated waste water volumes generated, including flowback fluids from hydraulic fracturing operations, and the proposed methods of storage, handling, and recycling or disposal.
• Description of proposed steps to mitigate anticipated adverse environmental impacts on refuge resources and uses, including, but not limited to: refuge's land features, land uses, fish and wildlife, vegetation, soils, surface and subsurface water resources, air quality, noise, lightscapes, viewsheds, cultural resources, and economic environment.
• Description of any anticipated impacts that cannot be mitigated.
• Description of all alternatives considered that meet the criteria of technologically feasible, least-damaging methods of operations, as well as the costs and environmental effects of such alternatives.
• Contact information (name, address, and telephone number) for persons that we can contact in the event of a spill, fire, or accident, including the order in which the persons should be contacted.
• Notification procedures and steps taken to minimize damage in the event of spill, fire, or accident.
• Identification of contaminating or toxic substances used within the area of operations or expected to be encountered during operations.
• Trajectory analysis for potential spills that are not contained on location.
• Identification of abnormal pressure, temperature, toxic gases or substances, or other hazardous conditions at the area of operations or expected to be encountered during operations.
• Measures (
• Steps to prevent accumulations of oil or other materials deemed to be fire hazards from occurring in the vicinity of well locations and lease tanks.
• Equipment and methods for containment and cleanup of contaminating substances, including a description of the equipment available at the area of operations and equipment available from local contractors.
• Storm water drainage plan and actions intended to mitigate storm water runoff.
• Material safety data sheets (where required by law) for each material that will be used or encountered during operations, including expected quantities maintained at the area of operations.
• Description of the emergency actions that will be taken in the event of injury or death to fish and wildlife or vegetation.
• Description of the emergency actions that will be taken in the event of accidents causing human injury.
• Contingency plans for conditions and emergencies other than spills, such as if the area of operations is located in areas prone to hurricanes, flooding, tornados, fires, or earthquakes.
• Description of the specific equipment, materials, methods, and schedule that will be used to meet the operating standards for reclamation at § 29.117.
• Itemized list of the estimated costs that a third party would charge to complete reclamation.
• Map showing the positions of each survey line including all source and receiver locations as determined by a locational survey, and shot point offset distances from wells, buildings, other infrastructure, cultural resources, and environmentally sensitive areas.
• Number of crews and numbers of workers in each crew.
• Description of the acquisition methods (including the procedures and specific equipment that will be used), and energy sources (
• Description of methods of access along each survey line for personnel, materials, and equipment.
• List of all explosives, blasting equipment, chemicals, and fuels that will be used in the proposed operations, including a description of proposed disposal methods, transportation methods, safety measures, and storage facilities.
• Description of well pad construction, including dimensions and cross sections of: Cut-and-fill areas and excavations for ditches, sumps, and spill control equipment or structures, including lined areas.
• Description of the drill rig and equipment layout, including rig components, fuel tanks, testing equipment, support facilities, storage areas, and all other well-site equipment and facilities.
• Description of type and characteristics of the proposed drilling mud systems.
• Description of the equipment, materials, and methods of surface operations associated with drilling, well casing and cementing, well control, well evaluation and testing, well completion, hydraulic fracturing or other well stimulation, and well plugging.
• Dimensions and a to-scale layout of: The well pad, clearly identifying well locations and noting partial reclamation areas; gathering, separation, metering, and storage equipment; electrical lines; fences; spill control equipment or structures including lined areas, artificial lift equipment, tank batteries,
• General description of anticipated stimulations, servicing, and workovers.
• Description of the procedures and equipment used to maintain well control.
• Description of method and means used to transport produced oil and gas, including vehicular transport; flowline and gathering line construction and operation, pipe size, and operating pressure; cathodic protection methods; surface equipment use; surface equipment location; maintenance procedures; maintenance schedules; pressure detection methods; and shutdown procedures.
• Road and well pad maintenance plan, including equipment and materials to maintain the road surface and control erosion.
• Vegetation management plan on well sites, roads, pipeline corridors, and other disturbed surface areas, including control of noxious and invasive species.
• Stormwater management plan on the well site.
• Produced water storage and disposal plan.
• Description of the equipment, materials, and procedures proposed for well plugging.
• Financial assurance in the amount specified by the Service and in accordance with the requirements of §§ 29.150 through 29.154.
• Proof of liability insurance with limits sufficient to cover injuries to persons or property caused by the operations.
• Third-party monitors will report directly to the Service regarding compliance with the operations permit and efforts to protect federally owned or administered lands, waters, or the resources of refuges, visitor uses and experiences, and visitor or employee health and safety.
• Operators must notify the Service within 24 hours of any injuries to or mortality of fish, wildlife, or endangered or threatened plants.
• Operators must notify the Service of any accidents involving serious personal injury or death and of any fires or spills on the site immediately after the accident occurs. A full written report on the accident must be submitted to the Service within 90 days after the accident occurs.
• Operators must submit reports or other information necessary to verify compliance with the permit or with any provision of subpart D of the regulations.
• If operations include hydraulic fracturing, the operator must provide the Service with a report including the true vertical depth of the well, total water volume used, and a description of the base fluid and each additive in the hydraulic fracturing fluid, including the trade name, supplier, purpose, ingredients, Chemical Abstract Service Number (CAS), maximum ingredient concentration in additive (percent by mass), and maximum ingredient concentration in hydraulic fracturing fluid (percent by mass). The report must be submitted through FracFocus or another Service-designated database.
Operators conducting operations under §§ 29.43 or 29.44 must notify the Service in writing within 30 calendar days from the date the new operator acquires the rights to conduct operations. Written notification must include:
• Names and addresses of the person or entity conveying the right and of the person or entity acquiring the right.
• Effective date of transfer.
• Description of the rights, assets, and liabilities being transferred and which ones, if any, are being reserved by the previous operator.
New operators must provide:
• Written acknowledgement that the contents of the notification are true and correct.
• Financial assurance.
• Documentation demonstrating that the operator holds the right to operate within the refuge.
• Names, phone numbers, and addresses of the primary company representative, the representative responsible for field supervision, and the representative responsible for emergency response.
• Information required under § 29.171(a).
• Written agreement to conduct operations in accordance with all terms and conditions of the previous operator's permit.
• Financial assurance that is acceptable to the Service and made payable to the Service.
• Explanation of why the well is shut-in or temporarily abandoned and future plans for utilization.
• Demonstration of the mechanical integrity of the well.
• Description of the manner in which the operator's well, equipment, and area of operations will be maintained in accordance with the standards in subpart D of the regulations.
• Identifies the owner of the withheld information and provides the name, address, and contact information for an authorized representative of the owner of the information;
• Identifies the Federal statute or regulation that would prohibit the Service from publicly disclosing the information if it were in the Service's possession;
• Affirms that the operator has been provided the withheld information from the owner of the information and is
• Affirms that the information is not publicly available;
• Affirms that the information is not required to be publicly disclosed under any applicable local, State, or Federal law;
• Affirms that the owner of the information is in actual competition and identifies competitors or others that could use the withheld information to cause the owner substantial competitive harm;
• Affirms that the release of the information would likely cause substantial competitive harm to the owner and provides the factual basis for that affirmation; and
• Affirms that the information is not readily apparent through reverse engineering with publicly available information.
As part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on any aspect of the reporting burden associated with this proposed information collection. We specifically invite comments concerning:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of our management functions involving management of non-Federal oil and gas rights, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for the 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.
If you wish to comment on the information collection requirements of this proposed rule, send your comments directly to OMB (see detailed instructions under the heading
This rule constitutes a major Federal action with the potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. We have prepared the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) under the requirements of the NEPA of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
In addition, EPA is publishing a notice announcing the draft EIS, as required under section 309 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401
EPA also serves as the repository (EIS database) for EISs prepared by Federal agencies and provides notice of their availability in the
The notice of availability is the start of the 60-day public comment period for draft EISs, and the start of the 30-day “wait period” for final EISs, during which agencies are generally required to wait 30 days before making a decision on a proposed action. For more information, see
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A statement of Energy Effects is not required.
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 (section 1(b)(12)), 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you believe we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the
This proposed rule reflects the collective efforts of Service staff in the NWRS, Division of Natural Resource and Conservation Planning, Branch of Wildlife Resources, refuges, and field offices, with assistance from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor.
It is the policy of the Department of the Interior, whenever feasible, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, interested persons may submit written comments regarding this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the
We are particularly interested in comments concerning:
1. Substantive differences between the Service's proposed regulations of oil and gas activity and those of other Federal agencies, including differences in the associated costs and benefits.
2. The costs and benefits of applying this rule to inholdings and operators accessing oil and gas rights from a surface location outside the refuge boundary.
3. Whether the performance and operating standards are clear and certain in their purpose, including §§ 29.40(c), 29.103(a), 29.110(b), and 29.119.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Law enforcement, Penalties, Wildlife refuges.
Oil and gas exploration, Public lands—mineral resources, Public lands—rights-of-way, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife refuges.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Service proposes to amend 50 CFR parts 28 and 29 as follows:
Sec. 2, 33 Stat. 614, as amended (16 U.S.C. 685); sec. 5, 43 Stat. 651 (16 U.S.C. 725); sec. 5, 45 Stat. 449 (16 U.S.C. 690d); sec. 10, 45 Stat. 1224 (16 U.S.C. 715i); sec. 4, 48 Stat. 402, as amended (16 U.S.C. 664); sec. 2, 48 Stat. 1270 (43 U.S.C. 315a); sec. 4, 76 Stat. 654 (16 U.S.C. 460k); sec. 4, 80 Stat. 927 (16 U.S.C. 668dd) (5 U.S.C. 301).
The regulations in this part govern enforcement, penalty, and procedural requirements for violations of subchapter C.
Sec. 2, 33 Stat. 614, as amended (16 U.S.C. 685); sec. 5, 43 Stat. 651 (16 U.S.C. 725); sec. 5, 45 Stat. 449 (16 U.S.C. 690d); sec. 10, 45 Stat. 1224 (16 U.S.C. 715i); sec. 4, 48 Stat. 402, as amended (16 U.S.C. 664); sec. 2, 48 Stat. 1270 (43 U.S.C. 315a); sec. 4, 76 Stat. 654 (16 U.S.C. 460k); sec. 4, 80 Stat. 927 (16 U.S.C. 668dd) (5 U.S.C. 301); Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-139-140; sec. 1, 96 Stat. 1051 (31 U.S.C. 9701); sec. 1, 96 Stat. 971 (31 U.S.C. 3711); sec. 1110, 94 Stat. 2457 (16 U.S.C 3161); sec. 28, 41 Stat. 449 (30 U.S.C. 185; sec. 1, 76 Stat. 1129 (40 U.S.C. 319).
(a) Non-Federal mineral rights owners within the National Wildlife Refuge System, not including coordination areas, must, to the greatest extent practicable, conduct all exploration, development, and production operations in such a manner as to prevent damage, erosion, pollution, or contamination to the lands, waters, facilities, and vegetation of the area. So far as is practicable, such operations must also be conducted without interference to the operation of the refuge or disturbance to the wildlife thereon.
(1) Physical occupancy of the area must be kept to the minimum space necessary to conduct efficient mineral operations.
(2) Persons conducting mineral operations on refuge areas must comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations for the protection of wildlife and the administration of the area.
(3) All waste and contaminating substances must be kept in the smallest practicable area, confined so as to prevent escape as a result of rains and high water or otherwise, and removed from the area as quickly as practicable in such a manner as to prevent contamination, pollution, damage, or injury to the lands, waters, facilities, or vegetation of the refuge or to wildlife.
(4) Structures and equipment must be removed from the area when the need for them has ended, and, upon the cessation of operations, the area must be restored as nearly as possible to its condition prior to the commencement of operations.
(b) Nothing in this section will be applied so as to contravene or nullify rights vested in holders of mineral interests on refuge lands.
(a) This subpart ensures that operators exercising non-Federal oil and gas rights within the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), excluding coordination areas, use technologically feasible, least-damaging methods to:
(1) Protect federally owned or administered lands, waters, or resources of refuges;
(2) Protect refuge wildlife-dependent recreational uses or experiences and visitor or employee health and safety; and
(3) Conserve refuges for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
(b) This subpart applies to all operators conducting non-Federal oil and gas operations on Service-administered surface estate held in fee or less-than fee (excluding coordination areas) or waters within the boundaries of the refuge to the extent necessary to protect those property interests. These regulations apply to operations in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States located within the boundaries of the Refuge System, including navigable waters and areas within their ordinary reach (up to the mean high-water line in places subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and up to the ordinary high-water mark in other places) and without regard to the ownership of submerged lands, tidelands, or lowlands. For areas where the United States does not hold a property interest but that lie within the boundaries of a refuge (
(c) This subpart is not intended to result in a taking of any property interest. The purpose of this subpart is to reasonably regulate operations to protect federally owned or administered lands, waters, or resources of refuges, visitor uses and experiences, and visitor or employee health and safety.
This subpart applies to you if you are an operator who conducts or proposes to conduct non-Federal oil or gas operations on the surface of land or waters within the boundaries of a refuge.
(a) You must demonstrate that you have the right to operate in order to conduct activities within a refuge.
(b) Except as provided in §§ 29.43 or 29.44, before starting operations, you must obtain a temporary access permit under §§ 29.70 through 29.73 for reconnaissance surveys and/or an operations permit under §§ 29.90 through 29.97.
(c) In refuge units in Alaska, regulations at 43 CFR part 36 govern the permitting process for authorizing the use of refuge land in order to provide access to an operator's oil and gas right.
If you already have a Service-approved special use permit or ROW permit, you may continue to operate according to the terms and conditions of that approval, subject to the provisions of this subpart. If you propose to conduct new operations or modify your existing operations, you must either amend your current authorization or obtain an operations permit in accordance with §§ 29.90 through 29.97.
Any operation being conducted on [INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] in accordance with local, State, and Federal laws and regulations may continue without an operations permit. However, your operation is subject to applicable requirements of this subpart, including §§ 29.60 through 29.64,
In addition to the definitions in §§ 25.12, 29.21, and 36.2 of this subchapter, the following definitions apply to this subpart:
(1) Operations include, but are not limited to: Access by any means to or from an area of operations; construction; geological and geophysical exploration; drilling, well servicing, workover, or recompletion; production; hydraulic fracturing, well simulation, and injection wells; gathering (including installation and maintenance of flowlines and gathering lines); storage, transport, or processing of petroleum products; earth moving; excavation; hauling; disposal; surveillance, inspection, monitoring, or maintenance of wells, facilities, and equipment; reclamation; road and pad building or improvement; shot hole and well plugging and abandonment, and
(2) Operations do not include reconnaissance surveys as defined in this subpart or oil and gas pipelines that are located within a refuge under authority of a deeded or other right-of-way.
(1) Includes identification of the area of operations and collection of natural and cultural resource information within and adjacent to the proposed area of operations.
(2) Does not include surface disturbance activities except for minimal disturbance necessary to perform cultural resource surveys, natural resource surveys, and location surveys required under this subpart.
(1) Supplies any public water system; or
(2) Contains a sufficient quantity of ground water to supply a public water system; and currently supplies drinking water for human consumption; or contains fewer than 10,000 mg/l total dissolved solids; and
(3) Is not an exempted aquifer.
No. Pre-existing operations are those conducted as of [INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] without an approved permit from the Service or prior to a boundary change or establishment of a new refuge unit. Pre-existing operations may be continued without an operations permit, but are required to operate in accordance with applicable local, State, and Federal laws, including regulations, and are subject to applicable provisions of this subpart, including requirements for a permit when the operator proposes to conduct new operations or to modify pre-existing operations.
You must submit the following information to the refuge where your pre-existing operation is occurring by [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] or 90 days after a boundary change or establishment of a new refuge:
(a) Documentation demonstrating that you hold the right to operate within a refuge.
(b) The names, phone numbers, and addresses of your:
(1) Primary company representative;
(2) Representative responsible for field supervision; and
(3) Representative responsible for emergency response.
(c) A scaled map clearly delineating your existing area of operations.
(d) Copies of all plans and permits required by local, State, and Federal agencies.
(a) You must obtain an operations permit before conducting operations that are begun after [INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] in accordance with §§ 29.90 through 29.97, Operations Permit: Application.
(b) You must obtain an operations permit prior to modifying your pre-existing operations.
Upon completion of your production operation, you will be subject to the reclamation standards in § 29.117(d). You must obtain an operations permit prior to conducting well plugging and reclamation in accordance with applicable sections of this subpart.
Your pre-existing operations are also subject to the following regulations in this part 29:
(a) §§ 29.120 and 29.121, General Terms and Conditions;
(b) § 29.170(a), Change of Operator;
(c) §§ 29.180 and 29.181, Well Plugging;
(d) § 29.190, Prohibited Acts and Penalties; and
(e) § 29.200, Appeals.
You must apply to the Service for a temporary access permit to access your proposed area of operations in order to conduct reconnaissance surveys. This permit will describe the means, routes, timing, and other terms and conditions of your access as determined by the Service to result in only the minimum disturbance necessary to perform surveys. For Alaska, the temporary access provisions at 43 CFR 36.10 still apply.
You must submit the information requested in FWS Form 3-2469 (Oil and Gas Operations Special Use Permit Application) to the refuge in which you propose to conduct operations. Information includes, but is not limited to:
(a) The name, legal address, and telephone number of the operator, employee, agent, or contractor
(b) Documentation demonstrating that you hold the right to operate within the refuge;
(c) The name, legal address, telephone number, and qualifications of all specialists responsible for conducting the reconnaissance surveys (Only required if the assistants/subcontractors/subpermittees will be operating on the refuge without the permittee being present.);
(d) A brief description of the intended operation so that we can determine reconnaissance survey needs;
(e) A description of the survey methods you intend to use to identify the natural and cultural resources;
(f) A map (to-scale and determined by us to be acceptable) delineating the proposed reconnaissance survey area in relation to the refuge boundary and the proposed area of operations; and
(g) A description of proposed means of access and routes for conducting the reconnaissance surveys.
Within 30 calendar days of receipt of the application for a reconnaissance survey, we will advise you whether the application fulfills the requirements of §§ 29.70 through 29.71 and issue you a temporary access permit or provide you with a statement of additional information that is needed for us to conduct review of your application.
Your temporary access permit will be in effect for a maximum of 60 calendar days from the date of issuance, unless a longer term is specified in the permit approval. We may extend the term of the permit for a reasonable period of time, based upon your written request that explains why an extension is necessary.
No. Using directional drilling from a non-Federal surface location to reach your oil and gas rights within a refuge is exempt from these regulations. However, you are encouraged to provide the Service the names, phone numbers, and addresses of your primary company representative, representative responsible for field supervision, and representative responsible for emergency response at least 60 calendar days prior to conducting your operation. If you require access across Federal surface estate, that access is subject to applicable provisions of this subpart, including obtaining an operations permit for any new access or modification of existing access.
Except as otherwise provided in §§ 29.43, 29.44, 29.70 and 29.80, if you are proposing to conduct operations within a refuge, you must submit an application (FWS Form 3-2469, or if in Alaska SF-299) for an operations permit to the Service.
You should participate in a pre-application meeting with the Service to allow for an early exchange of information between you and the Service with the intent of avoiding delays in your application process.
(a) For the meeting, you should provide:
(1) Documentation demonstrating that you hold the legal right to operate; and
(2) An overview of your proposed operation and timing.
(b) The Service will provide guidance on the permitting process and information on available resource data, and identify additional data needs.
Yes.
(a) You do not need to resubmit information that is already on file with the Service, provided that such information is still current and accurate. You may reference this information in your oil and gas operations permit application.
(b) You may submit documents and materials submitted to other Federal and State agencies noting how the information meets the specific requirements of §§ 29.93 through 29.97.
No. You need only provide information for those operations for which you are seeking immediate approval. Approval of activities beyond the scope of your application may be subject to a new application and approval process.
All applications must include the information requested on FWS Form 3-2469 (or SF-299, if applicable), including, but not limited to:
(a) The name, legal address, and telephone number of the operator, employee, agent, or contractor responsible for overall management of the proposed operations.
(b) Documentation demonstrating that you hold the legal right to operate within the refuge.
(c) A description of the natural features of your proposed area of operations, such as: Streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands (including estimated depths to the top and bottom of zones of usable water); topographic relief; and areas the Service has indicated to you are sensitive.
(d) The location of existing roads, trails, railroad tracks, pipeline rights-of-way, pads, and other disturbed areas.
(e) The location of existing structures that your operations could affect, including buildings, pipelines, oil and gas wells including both producing and plugged and abandoned wells, injection wells, freshwater wells, underground and overhead electrical lines, and other utility lines.
(f) Descriptions of the natural resource and cultural resource survey reports for your proposed area of operations.
(g) Locations map(s) (to-scale and determined by us to be acceptable) that clearly identifies:
(1) Proposed area of operations, existing conditions, and proposed new surface uses, including the boundaries of each of your oil and gas tracts in relation to your proposed operations and the relevant refuge boundary.
(2) Proposed access routes of new surface disturbances as determined by a location survey.
(3) Proposed location of all support facilities, including those for transportation (
(h) The method and diagrams, including cross-sections, of any proposed pad construction, road construction, cut-and-fill areas, and surface maintenance, including erosion control.
(i) The number and types of equipment and vehicles, including an estimate of vehicular round trips associated with your operation.
(j) An estimated timetable for the proposed operations, including any operational timing constraints.
(k) The type and extent of security measures proposed at your area of operations.
(l) The power sources and their transmission systems for the proposed operations.
(m) The types and quantities of all solid and liquid waste generated and the proposed methods of storage, handling, and disposal.
(n) The source, quantity, access route, and transportation/conveyance method for all water to be used in operations, including hydraulic fracturing, and estimations of any anticipated wastewater volumes generated, including flowback fluids from hydraulic fracturing, and the proposed methods of storage, handling, and recycling or disposal.
(o) The following information regarding mitigation actions and alternatives considered:
(1) A description of the steps you propose to take to mitigate anticipated adverse environmental impacts on refuge resources and uses, including, but not limited to, the refuge's land features, land uses, fish and wildlife, vegetation, soils, surface and subsurface water resources, air quality, noise, lightscapes, viewsheds, cultural resources, and economic environment.
(2) A description of any anticipated impacts that you cannot mitigate.
(3) A description of alternatives considered that meet the criteria of technologically feasible, least-damaging methods of operations, as well as the costs and environmental effects of such alternatives.
(p) You must submit the following information about your spill control and emergency preparedness plan. You may use a spill prevention control and countermeasure plan prepared under 40 CFR part 112 if the plan includes all of the information required by this section. You must submit:
(1) The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the people whom the Service can contact in the event of a spill, fire, or accident, including the order in which the individuals should be contacted.
(2) The notification procedures and steps taken to minimize damage in event of spill, fire, or accident.
(3) Identification of contaminating or toxic substances used within your area of operations or expected to be encountered during operations.
(4) Trajectory analysis for potential spills that are not contained on location.
(5) Identification of abnormal pressure, temperature, toxic gases or substances, or other hazardous conditions at your area of operations or expected to be encountered during operations.
(6) Measures (
(7) Steps to prevent accumulations of oil or other materials deemed to be fire hazards from occurring in the vicinity of well locations and lease tanks.
(8) The equipment and methods for containment and cleanup of contaminating substances, including a description of the equipment available at your area of operations and equipment available from local contractors.
(9) A stormwater drainage plan and actions intended to mitigate stormwater runoff.
(10) Material safety data sheets, where required by law, for each material you will use or encounter during operations, including expected quantities maintained at your area of operations.
(11) A description of the emergency actions you will take in the event of injury or death to fish and wildlife or vegetation.
(12) A description of the emergency actions you will take in the event of accidents causing human injury.
(13) Contingency plans for conditions and emergencies other than spills, such as if your area of operations is located in areas prone to hurricanes, flooding, tornadoes, fires, or earthquakes.
(q) A description of the specific equipment, materials, methods, and schedule that will be used to meet the operating standards for reclamation at § 29.117.
(r) An itemized list of the estimated costs that a third party would charge to complete reclamation.
If you propose to conduct geophysical exploration, you must submit the information requested on FWS Form 3-2469, including, but not limited to:
(a) A map showing the positions of each survey line including all source and receiver locations as determined by a locational survey, and including shot point offset distances from wells, buildings, other infrastructure, cultural resources, and environmentally sensitive areas;
(b) The number of crews and numbers of workers in each crew;
(c) A description of the acquisition methods, including the procedures and specific equipment you will use, and energy sources (
(d) A description of the methods of access along each survey line for personnel, materials, and equipment; and
(e) A list of all explosives, blasting equipment, chemicals, and fuels you will use in the proposed operations, including a description of proposed disposal methods, transportation methods, safety measures, and storage facilities.
If you are proposing to drill a well, you must submit the information requested on FWS Form 3-2469, including, but not limited to:
(a) A description of the well pad construction, including dimensions and cross sections of cut-and-fill areas and excavations for ditches, sumps, and spill control equipment or structures, including lined areas;
(b) A description of the drill rig and equipment layout, including rig components, fuel tanks, testing equipment, support facilities, storage areas, and all other well-site equipment and facilities;
(c) A description of the type and characteristics of the proposed drilling mud systems; and
(d) A description of the equipment, materials, and methods of surface operations associated with your drilling, well casing and cementing, well control, well evaluation and testing, well completion, hydraulic fracturing or other well stimulation, and well plugging programs.
If you are proposing to produce a well, you must submit the information requested on FWS Form 3-2469, including, but not limited to:
(a) The dimensions and the to-scale layout of the well pad, clearly identifying well locations, noting partial reclamation areas; gathering, separation, metering, and storage equipment; electrical lines; fences; spill control equipment or structures, including lined areas, artificial lift equipment, tank batteries, treating and separating vessels, secondary or enhanced recovery facilities, water disposal facilities, gas compression and/or injection facilities; metering points; sales point (if on lease); tanker pickup points; gas compressor, including size and type (if applicable); and any other well site equipment.
(b) A general description of anticipated stimulations, servicing, and workovers.
(c) A description of the procedures and equipment used to maintain well control.
(d) A description of the method and means used to transport produced oil and gas, including vehicular transport; flowline and gathering line construction
(e) A road and well pad maintenance plan, including equipment and materials to maintain the road surface and control erosion.
(f) A vegetation management plan on well sites, roads, pipeline corridors, and other disturbed surface areas, including control of noxious and invasive species.
(g) A stormwater management plan on the well site.
(h) A produced water storage and disposal plan.
(i) A description of the equipment, materials, and procedures proposed for well plugging.
We will conduct initial review of your application to determine if all information is complete. Once your information is complete, we will begin formal review.
(a) Within 30 calendar days of receipt of your application, the Service will notify you in writing that one of the following situations exists:
(1) Your application is complete, and the Service will begin formal review;
(2) Your application does not meet the information requirements, in which case we will identify the additional information required to be submitted before the Service will be able to conduct formal review of your application; or
(3) More time is necessary to complete the review, in which case the Service will provide the amount of additional time reasonably needed along with a justification.
(b) If you submit additional information as requested under § 29.101(a)(2), and the Service determines that you have met all applicable information requirements, the Service will notify you within 30 calendar days from receipt of the additional information that either:
(1) Your application is complete, and the Service will begin formal review; or
(2) More time is necessary to complete the initial review, in which case the Service will provide the amount of additional time reasonably needed along with a justification.
(c) When ANILCA title XI/Access to inholdings applies, 43 CFR 36.5 governs the review.
For those applications for which the Service determines that the applicant holds a valid property right, the Service will conduct a formal review of your application by:
(a) Evaluating the potential impacts of your proposal on federally owned or administered lands, waters, or resources of refuges; visitor uses or experiences; or visitor or employee health and safety in compliance with applicable Federal laws; and
(b) Identifying any additional operating conditions that would apply to your approved application.
(a) In order to approve your operations permit application, it must comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, and the Service must determine that your operations will:
(1) Use technologically feasible, least-damaging methods; and
(2) Meet all applicable operating standards.
(b) Before operations begin, you must submit to the Service:
(1) Financial assurance in the amount specified by the Service and in accordance with the requirements of §§ 29.150 through 29.154, Financial Assurance; and
(2) Proof of liability insurance with limits sufficient to cover injuries to persons or property caused by your operations.
(a) We will make a decision on your application within 180 days from the date we deem your application complete unless:
(1) We and you agree that such decision will occur within a shorter or longer period of time; or
(2) We determine that an additional period of time is required to ensure that we have, in reviewing the permit application, complied with other applicable laws, Executive Orders, and regulations.
(b) For ANILCA title XI/Access to inholding timelines, 43 CFR part 36 governs.
(c) We will notify you in writing that your permit application is:
(1) Approved, with or without operating conditions; or
(2) Denied, and provide justification for the denial. Any such denial must be consistent with § 29.40(c).
The purposes are to:
(a) Protect federally owned or administered lands, waters, and refuge resources; wildlife-dependent visitor uses and experiences; and visitor and employee health and safety; and
(b) Ensure use of technologically feasible, least-damaging methods. The operating standards give us and the operator flexibility to consider using alternative methods, equipment, materials design, and conduct of operations.
As a permittee, you must:
(a) Design, construct, operate, and maintain access to your operational site to cause the minimum amount of surface disturbance needed to safely conduct operations and to avoid areas we have identified as containing sensitive resources.
(b) Install and maintain secondary containment materials and structures for all equipment and facilities using or storing contaminating substances. The containment system must be sufficiently impervious to prevent discharge and must have sufficient storage capacity to contain, at a minimum, the largest potential spill incident.
(c) Keep temporarily stored waste in the smallest area feasible, and confine the waste to prevent escape as a result of percolation, rain, high water, or other causes. You must regularly remove waste from the refuge and lawfully dispose of the waste in a direct and workable timeframe. You may not establish a solid waste disposal site on a refuge.
(d) Use engines that adhere to current Federal and State emission standards.
(e) Construct, maintain, and use roads in a manner to minimize fugitive dust emissions.
(f) Use equipment and implement work practice standards that are consistent with good air pollution control practices to minimize emissions of air pollutants, and releases or flaring of gas.
(g) Design, operate, and maintain your operations and equipment in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices so as to minimize leaks of air pollutants and hydrocarbons to the atmosphere to the extent reasonably practicable.
(h) Control the invasion of noxious and invasive plant and animal species in your area of operations from the beginning through final reclamation.
(i) Avoid conducting ground-disturbing operations within 500 feet of any refuge structure or facility used by refuges for interpretation, public recreation, or administration. We may increase or decrease this distance as needed to protect federally owned or administered structures or facilities, visitor uses or experiences, or visitor or employee health and safety; or to ensure that you have reasonable access to your non-Federal oil and gas. Measurements for purposes of this paragraph are by map distance.
To protect fish and wildlife resources on the refuge, you must:
(a) Along with your employees and contractors, adhere to all refuge regulations for the protection of fish, wildlife, and plants;
(b) Ensure that you, your employees, and contractors have been informed and educated by the refuge staff on the appropriate protection practices for wildlife conservation;
(c) Provide a safe environment for fish and wildlife that minimizes or avoids exposure to unpermitted physical and chemical hazards; and
(d) Comply with all seasonal buffers or restrictions to protect wildlife.
You must:
(a) Avoid conducting ground-disturbing operations within 500 feet of surface water, including an intermittent or ephemeral watercourse, or wetland. We may increase or decrease this distance as needed to protect federally owned or administered lands, waters, or resources of the refuge, visitor uses or experiences, or visitor or employee health and safety; or to ensure that you have reasonable access to your non-Federal oil and gas. Measurements for purposes of this paragraph are by map distance.
(b) Construct facilities in a manner that maintains hydrologic movement and function.
(c) Not cause measurable degradation of surface water or groundwater beyond that of existing conditions.
(d) Conduct operations in a manner that maintains natural processes of erosion and sedimentation.
To ensure the safety of your operations, you must:
(a) Maintain your area of operations in a manner that avoids or minimizes the cause or spread of fire and does not intensify fire originating outside your operations area;
(b) Maintain structures, facilities, improvements, and equipment in a safe and professional manner in order to provide a safe environment for refuge resources, visitors, and employees, free from exposure to physical and chemical hazards; and
(c) Provide site-security measures to protect visitors from hazardous conditions resulting from the conduct of your operations.
(a) You must design, shield, and focus lighting to minimize the effects of spill light on the night sky or adjacent areas; and
(b) You must reduce visual contrast in the landscape in selecting the area of operations, avoiding unnecessary disturbance, choosing appropriate colors and materials for roads and permanent structures, and other means.
You must prevent or minimize all noise that:
(a) Adversely affects refuge resources or uses, taking into account frequency, magnitude, or duration; or
(b) Exceeds levels that have been identified through monitoring as being acceptable to or appropriate for uses at the sites being monitored.
(a) You must promptly clean up and remove from the refuge any released contaminating substances in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws.
(b) You must perform partial reclamation of areas that are no longer necessary to conduct operations. You must begin final reclamation within 6 months after you complete your authorized operations unless we authorize a different reclamation period in writing.
(c) You must protect all survey markers (
(d) You must complete reclamation by:
(1) Plugging all wells;
(2) Removing all above-ground structures, equipment, roads, and all other manmade material and debris resulting from operations;
(3) Removing or neutralizing any contaminating substances;
(4) Reestablishing native vegetative communities, or providing for conditions where ecological processes typical of the ecological zone (
(5) Grading to reasonably conform the contours to pre-existing elevations that are most appropriate to maximizing ecologic functional value;
(6) Restoring conditions to predisturbance hydrologic movement and functionality;
(7) Restoring natural systems using native soil material that is similar in character to the adjacent undisturbed soil profiles;
(8) Ensuring that reclamation does not interfere with visitor use or with administration of the unit;
(9) Attaining conditions that are consistent with the management objectives of the refuge, designed to meet the purposes for which the refuge was established; and
(10) Coordinating with us or with other operators who may be using a portion of your area of operations to ensure proper and equitable apportionment of reclamation responsibilities.
If you conduct geophysical operations, you must do all of the following:
(a) Use surveying methods that minimize the need for vegetative trimming and removal.
(b) Locate source points using industry-accepted minimum safe-offset distances from pipelines, telephone lines, railroad tracks, roads, power lines, water wells, oil and gas wells, oil- and gas-production facilities, and buildings.
(c) Use equipment and methods that, based upon the specific environment, will minimize impacts to federally owned or administered lands, waters, and resources of refuges; visitor uses and experiences; and visitor and employee health and safety.
(d) If you use shot holes, you must:
(1) Use biodegradable charges;
(2) Plug all shot holes to prevent a pathway for migration for fluids along any portion of the bore; and
(3) Leave the site in a clean and safe condition that will not impede surface reclamation or pose a hazard to human health and safety.
(e) For geological and geophysical exploration for oil and gas within the
If you conduct drilling and production operations, you must meet all of the following standards:
(a) To conduct drilling operations, you must:
(1) Use containerized mud circulation systems for operations;
(2) Not create or use earthen pits;
(3) Take all necessary precautions to keep your wells under control at all times, using only employees, contractors, or subcontractors trained and competent in well control procedures and equipment operation, and using industry-accepted well control equipment and practices; and
(4) Design, implement, and maintain integrated casing, cementing, drilling fluid, completion, stimulation, and blowout prevention programs to prevent escape of fluids to the surface and to isolate and protect usable water zones throughout the life of the well, taking into account all relevant geologic and engineering factors.
(b) To conduct production operations, in addition to meeting the standards of paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section, you must do all of the following:
(1) Monitor producing conditions for early indications that could lead to loss of mechanical integrity of producing equipment.
(2) Maintain all surface equipment and the wellhead to prevent leaks or releases of any fluids or air pollutants.
(3) Identify wells and related facilities with appropriate signage. Signs must remain in place until the well is plugged and abandoned and the related facilities are removed. Signs must be of durable construction, and the lettering must be legible and large enough to be read under normal conditions at a distance of at least 50 feet. Each sign must show the name of the well, name of the operator, and the emergency contact phone number.
(4) Regularly remove all equipment and materials that are no longer needed for a particular phase of your operation.
(5) Plug all wells, leaving the surface in a clean and safe condition that will not impede surface reclamation or pose a hazard to human health and safety, in accordance with § 29.117.
The following terms and conditions apply to all operators, regardless of whether these terms and conditions are expressly included in the operations permit:
(a) You must comply with all applicable operating standards in §§ 29.111 through 29.119; these operating standards will be incorporated in the terms and conditions of your operations permit. Violation of these operating standards, unless otherwise provided in your operations permit, will subject you to the Prohibited Acts and penalties provisions of §§ 29.190 through 29.192.
(b) You are responsible for ensuring that all of your employees, agents, contractors, and subcontractors comply fully with the requirements of this subpart.
(c) You may be required to reimburse the Service for the costs of processing and administering temporary access permits and operations permits.
(d) If not covered by a State-held water right, any use of water within a refuge must be approved by the Service upon the Service's determination that it will not impair any refuge resource or use.
(e) You must provide the refuge a statement under penalty of perjury, signed by an official who is authorized to legally bind the company, stating that proposed operations are in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations and that all information submitted to the Service is true and correct.
(f) You agree to indemnify and hold harmless the United States and its officers and employees from and against any and all liability of any kind whatsoever arising out of or resulting from the acts or omissions of you and your employees, agents, representatives, contractors, and subcontractors in the conduct of activities under the operations permit.
(g) You will be required to take all reasonable precautions to avoid, minimize, rectify, or reduce the overall impacts of your proposed oil and gas activities to the refuge. You may be required to mitigate for impacts to refuge resources and lost uses by providing for habitat creation, habitat restoration, land purchase, or other compensation agreed to by the Service.
(h) You will be responsible for unanticipated and unauthorized damages as a direct or indirect result of your operations. You will be responsible for the actions and consequences of your employees and subcontractors. You will also be responsible for any reclamation of damages to refuge resources caused by your operations as a result of severe weather, fire, earthquakes, or the like thereof.
(a) The Service may access your area of operations at any time to monitor the effects of your operations to ensure compliance with the regulations in this subpart.
(b) The Service may determine that third-party monitors are necessary to ensure compliance with your operations permit and to protect federally owned or administered lands, waters, or the resources of refuges, visitor uses and experiences, and visitor or employee health and safety.
(1) The Service's determination will be based on the scope and complexity of the proposed operation, reports that you are required to submit under paragraph (e) of this section, and whether the refuge has the staff and technical ability to ensure compliance with the operations permit and any provision of this subpart.
(2) A third-party monitor will report directly to the Service at intervals determined by the Service. We will make the information reported available to you upon your request.
(3) You will be responsible for the cost of the third-party monitor.
(c) You must notify the Service within 24 hours of any injuries to or mortality of fish, wildlife, or endangered or threatened plants resulting from your operations.
(d) You must notify the Service of any accidents involving serious personal injury or death and of any fires or spills on the site immediately after the accident occurs. You must submit a full written report on the accident to the Service within 90 days after the accident occurs.
(e) Upon our request, you must submit reports or other information necessary to verify compliance with your permit or with any provision of this subpart. To fulfill this request, you may submit to us reports that you have submitted to the State under State regulations, or that you have submitted to any other Federal agency.
(f) If your operations include hydraulic fracturing, you must provide the Service with a report including the true vertical depth of the well, total water volume used, and a description of the base fluid and each additive in the hydraulic fracturing fluid, including the trade name, supplier, purpose, ingredients, Chemical Abstract Service Number (CAS), maximum ingredient concentration in additive (percent by mass), and maximum ingredient concentration in hydraulic fracturing fluid (percent by mass). The report must be submitted through FracFocus or another Service-designated database.
Operations permits remain valid for the duration of the operation. Provisions of § 29.160 apply.
(a) The Service may grant you the privilege of access on, across, or through federally owned or administered lands or waters in any refuge to reach the boundary of your oil and gas right. You should contact the Service to determine if additional permits are necessary for access.
(b) In refuge units in Alaska, regulations and standards at 43 CFR part 36 govern access, including access fees, to an operator's oil and gas right.
(a) The Service will charge you a fee if you require use of federally owned or administered lands or waters outside the boundary or scope of your oil and gas right:
(1) If you require new use of federally owned or administered lands or waters, we will charge you a fee based on the fair market value of that use.
(2) Fees under this section will not be charged for access within the scope of your oil and gas right or access to your right that is otherwise provided for by law.
(b) If access to your oil and gas right is across an existing refuge road, we may charge a fee according to a posted fee schedule.
(c) We, to the extent permitted by law, may allow you to undertake in-kind services to offset fees.
No.
(a) The Service will not charge a fee for access across federally owned or administered lands beyond the scope of your oil and gas right as necessary to respond to an emergency situation at your area of operations if we determine after the fact that the circumstances required an immediate response to either:
(1) Prevent or minimize injury to refuge resources; or
(2) Ensure public health and safety.
(b) You will be liable for any damage caused to refuge resources as a result of such emergency access.
You will need to provide financial assurances as a condition of approval for your operations permit when you submit your application. You must file financial assurance with us in a form acceptable to the Service and payable upon demand. This financial assurance is in addition to any financial assurance required by any other Federal or State regulatory authority.
(a) We will base the financial assurance amount upon the estimated cost that a third-party contractor would charge to complete reclamation in accordance with this subpart. If the cost of reclamation exceeds the amount of your financial assurance, you will remain liable for all costs of reclamation in excess of the financial assurance.
(b) The Service will reduce the required amount of your financial assurance during the pendency of operations by the amount we determine is represented by in-kind reclamation you provide during your operations.
The Service may require, or you may request, an adjustment to the financial assurance amount because of any circumstance that increases or decreases the estimated costs established under § 29.151.
(a) Your responsibility under the financial assurance will continue until either:
(1) The Service determines that you have met all applicable reclamation operating standards and any additional reclamation requirements that may be included in your operations permit; or
(2) A new operator assumes your operations, as provided in § 29.170(b).
(b) You will be notified by the Service within 30 calendar days of our determination that your financial assurance has been released.
(a) You may forfeit all or part of your financial assurance if we cannot secure your compliance with the provisions of your operations permit or a provision of this subpart. The part of your financial assurance forfeited is based on costs to the Service to remedy your noncompliance.
(b) In addition to forfeited financial assurance, we may temporarily:
(1) Prohibit you from removing all structures, equipment, or other materials from your area of operations;
(2) Require you to secure the operations site and take any necessary actions to protect federally owned or administered lands, waters, and resources of the refuge; visitor uses; and visitor or employee health and safety; and
(3) Suspend review of any permit applications you have submitted until we determine that all violations of permit provisions or of any provision of this subpart are resolved.
(4) Seek recovery as provided in § 29.151 for all costs of reclamation in excess of the posted financial assurance.
The Service may amend an approved temporary access permit or an operations permit to adjust to changed conditions or to address unanticipated conditions, either upon our own action or at your request.
(a) To request a modification to your operation, you must provide, in writing, to the Service, your assigned permit number, a description of the proposed modification, and an explanation of why the modification is needed. We will review your request for modification under the approval standards at §§ 29.72 or 29.103.
(b) If the Service needs to amend your temporary access permit or operations permit, you will receive a written notice that:
(1) Describes the modification required and justification; and
(2) Specifies the time within which you must incorporate the modification into your operations.
(c) You may not implement any modification until you have received the Service's written approval.
(a) If your operations are being conducted under § 29.44, you must notify the Service in writing within 30 calendar days from the date the new operator acquires the rights to conduct operations. Your written notification must include:
(1) The names and addresses of the person or entity conveying the right and of the person or entity acquiring the right;
(2) The effective date of transfer;
(3) The description of the rights, assets, and liabilities being transferred and which ones, if any, are being reserved by the previous operator; and
(4) A written acknowledgement from the new operator that the contents of the notification are true and correct.
(b) If your operations are being conducted under § 29.43 or an operations permit:
(1) You must provide notice under paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) You remain responsible for compliance with your operations permit, and we will retain your financial assurance until the new operator:
(i) Adopts and agrees in writing to conduct operations in accordance with all terms and conditions of your operations permit;
(ii) Provides financial assurance with us that is acceptable to the Service and made payable to the Service; and
(iii) Receives written notification from the Service that transfer of the operations permit has been approved.
(a) If another operator transfers operations conducted under § 29.44, as the transferee you may continue operating under the requirements of that section, but within 30 calendar days from the date of the transfer, you must provide to the Service:
(1) Documentation demonstrating that you hold the right to operate; and
(2) The names, phone numbers, and addresses of your:
(i) Primary company representative;
(ii) Representative responsible for field supervision; and
(iii) Representative responsible for emergency response.
(b) If another operator transfers operations conducted under § 29.43 or an operations permit, in addition to the information required under paragraph (a) of this section, you must within 30 days of commencing transferred operations:
(1) Agree in writing to conduct operations in accordance with all terms and conditions of the previous operator's permit; and
(2) File financial assurance with us that is acceptable to the Service and made payable to the Service; and
(3) Receive written approval from the Service for the transfer of the operation's permit.
(c) You may modify operations transferred to you in accordance with § 29.160.
Except as provided in § 29.181, you must plug your well, in accordance with the standards and procedures outlined in this subpart, when any of the following occurs:
(a) Your drilling operations have ended and you have taken no further action on your well within 60 calendar days;
(b) Your well, which has been completed for production operations, is continuously inactive for a period of 1 year; or
(c) The period approved in your operations permit to maintain your well in shut-in status has expired.
(a) You may apply for either an operations permit or a modification to your approved operations permit to maintain your well in a shut-in status for up to 5 years. Provide the information requested on FWS Form 3-2469, including, but not limited to:
(1) An explanation of why the well is shut-in or temporarily abandoned and your future plans for utilization;
(2) A demonstration of the mechanical integrity of the well; and
(3) A description of the manner in which your well, equipment, and area of operations will be maintained in accordance with the standards in the subpart.
(b) Based on the information provided under this section, we may approve your application to maintain your well in shut-in status for a period up to 5 years.
(c) You may apply for additional extensions by submitting a new application under paragraph (a) of this section.
The following acts are prohibited:
(a) Operating in violation of the terms or conditions of a temporary access permit, an operations permit, a permit under § 29.43, or any applicable provision of this subpart, including § 29.60 for pre-existing operations.
(b) Damaging federally owned or administered lands, waters, or resources of a refuge as a result of failure to comply with the terms or conditions of a temporary access permit, an operations permit, operations being conducted under §§ 29.43 or 29.44, or any provision of this subpart.
(c) Conducting operations without a temporary access permit or an operations permit, unless conducting operations under §§ 29.43 or 29.44.
(d) Failure to comply with any suspension or revocation order issued under this subpart.
(e) Failure to comply with any applicable Federal law or regulation, including any applicable State law or regulation. Unless specifically covered by the general and special regulations set forth in this subchapter, the laws and regulations of the State within whose exterior boundaries a national wildlife refuge or portion thereof is located will govern the exploration, production, storage, and transportation of oil and gas. Such non-conflicting State laws and regulations that are now or may hereafter be in effect are hereby adopted and made a part of the regulations in this part.
(f) Failure to comply with any of the above in Alaska, except for violations of 43 CFR part 36, which are governed by the regulations in subpart B of this part.
If you engage in a prohibited act:
(a) The Service may suspend and/or revoke your approved operations permit and your authorization for operations as set forth at § 29.43 and § 29.44; and/or
(b) All prohibited acts are subject to the penalty provisions set forth at § 28.31 of subchapter C of this chapter.
Until you comply with the regulations in this subpart, we will not consider a new request to conduct any operations within a refuge.
Yes. If you disagree with a decision made by the Service under this subpart, you may use the appeals process in § 25.45 of subchapter C of this chapter. For ROWs, appeals would still be governed by § 29.22; in Alaska, appeals would still be governed by 43 CFR 36.8.
(a) Interested parties may view the publicly available documents at the refuge's office during normal business hours or by other means prescribed by the refuge. The availability for public inspection of information about the nature, location, character, or ownership of refuge resources will conform to all applicable law and implementing regulations, standards, and guidelines.
(b) The refuge will make available for public inspection any documents that an operator submits to the Service under this subpart except those that you have identified as proprietary or confidential.
(c) For the information required in § 29.121(f), the operator and the owner of the information will be deemed to have waived any right to protect from public disclosure information submitted
(d) For information required under this subpart that the owner of the information claims to be exempt from public disclosure and is withheld from the Service, a corporate officer, managing partner, or sole proprietor of the operator must sign and the operator must submit to the authorized officer an affidavit that:
(1) Identifies the owner of the withheld information and provides the name, address, and contact information for a corporate officer, managing partner, or sole proprietor of the owner of the information;
(2) Identifies the Federal statute or regulation that would prohibit the Service from publicly disclosing the information if it were in the Service's possession;
(3) Affirms that the operator has been provided the withheld information from the owner of the information and is maintaining records of the withheld information, or that the operator has access and will maintain access to the withheld information held by the owner of the information;
(4) Affirms that the information is not publicly available;
(5) Affirms that the information is not required to be publicly disclosed under any applicable local, State, tribal, or Federal law;
(6) Affirms that the owner of the information is in actual competition and identifies competitors or others that could use the withheld information to cause the owner of the information substantial competitive harm;
(7) Affirms that the release of the information would likely cause substantial competitive harm to the owner of the information and provides the factual basis for that affirmation; and
(8) Affirms that the information is not readily apparent through reverse engineering with publicly available information.
(e) If the operator relies upon information from third parties, such as the owner of the withheld information, to make the affirmations in paragraphs (d)(6) through (d)(8) of this section, the operator must provide a written affidavit from the third party that sets forth the relied-upon information.
(f) The Service may require any operator to submit to the Service any withheld information, and any information relevant to a claim that withheld information is exempt from public disclosure.
(g) If the Service determines that the information submitted under paragraph (e) of this section is not exempt from disclosure, the Service will make the information available to the public after providing the operator and owner of the information with no fewer than 10 business days' notice of the Service's determination.
(h) The operator must maintain records of the withheld information until the later of the Service's release of the operator's financial assurance or 7 years after completion of operations on refuge lands. Any subsequent operator will be responsible for maintaining access to records required by this paragraph during its operation of the well. The operator will be deemed to be maintaining the records if it can promptly provide the complete and accurate information to the Service, even if the information is in the custody of its owner.
(i) If any of the chemical identity information required in this subpart is withheld, the operator must provide the generic chemical name in the submission required. The generic chemical name must be only as nonspecific as is necessary to protect the confidential chemical identity, and should be the same as or no less descriptive than the generic chemical name provided to the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Office of Management and Budget reviewed and approved the information collection requirements contained in this subpart and assigned OMB Control No. 1018-XXXX. We use the information collected under this subpart to manage non-Federal oil and gas operations within refuge boundaries for the purpose of protecting wildlife and habitat, water quality and quantity, wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, and the health and safety of employees and visitors on NWRS lands. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. You may send comments on the information collection requirements to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at the address listed in 50 CFR 2.2.
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 |