| Page Range | 15147-15474 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 15257 - Umetco Minerals Corporation; Gas Hills East Site | |
| 80 FR 15255 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; New Information Requests; Comment Request; Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation Application for Udall Scholarship; Application for the Udall Internship | |
| 80 FR 15167 - Special Local Regulation; Annual Marine Events on the Colorado River, Between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, Arizona) and Headgate Dam (Parker, Arizona) Within the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone | |
| 80 FR 15227 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 15180 - Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Definitions of Low Pressure Gas Well and Storage Vessel | |
| 80 FR 15186 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Study on Nutrition and Wellness Quality in Childcare Settings (SNAQCS) | |
| 80 FR 15210 - National and Governmental Advisory Committees to the U.S. Representative to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation | |
| 80 FR 15186 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 15233 - Information Collection Requests to Office of Management and Budget | |
| 80 FR 15240 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget | |
| 80 FR 15174 - Safety Zone, Chesapeake Bay; Cape Charles, VA | |
| 80 FR 15211 - National Environmental Education Advisory Council; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 15167 - Safety Zone, Delaware River; Marcus Hook, PA | |
| 80 FR 15249 - Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge, Bayfield County, Wisconsin; Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment | |
| 80 FR 15242 - Endangered and Threatened Species Permit Applications | |
| 80 FR 15194 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 15195 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 15218 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request Prevalence, Incidence, Epidemiology and Molecular Variants of HIV in Blood Donors in Brazil (NHLBI) | |
| 80 FR 15198 - Application To Export Electric Energy; Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. | |
| 80 FR 15213 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 80 FR 15213 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 80 FR 15203 - Notice of Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act | |
| 80 FR 15192 - Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Changed Circumstances Review of Lanling Qingshui Vegetable Foods Co., Ltd. | |
| 80 FR 15199 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 80 FR 15207 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 80 FR 15208 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 80 FR 15205 - Notice of Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act | |
| 80 FR 15241 - Notice of Public Meeting on the Proposed Revised Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, As Revised Through the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard | |
| 80 FR 15193 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits | |
| 80 FR 15253 - Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health (FACOSH) | |
| 80 FR 15234 - Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program; Fire Prevention and Safety Grants | |
| 80 FR 15256 - NASA Advisory Council; Meeting | |
| 80 FR 15241 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Public Housing Agency Executive Compensation Information | |
| 80 FR 15189 - Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 15268 - Complementary Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Capability; Notice; Request for Public Comments | |
| 80 FR 15259 - Request for Public Comment on Activities Under Executive Order 12333 | |
| 80 FR 15228 - Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request; Process and Outcomes Evaluation of NCI Physical Sciences in Oncology Centers (PS-OC) Initiative (NCI) | |
| 80 FR 15231 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 15260 - Investor Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 80 FR 15221 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 15198 - New Hampshire Hydro Associates; Rivermill Hydroelectric, Inc.; Notice of Transfer of Exemption | |
| 80 FR 15201 - UGI Sunbury, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Sunbury Pipeline Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting | |
| 80 FR 15201 - California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of FERC Staff Attendance | |
| 80 FR 15199 - Kenneth & Susan Egnaczak; Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting Comments, Protests, and Motions To Intervene | |
| 80 FR 15207 - Southern Energy, Inc.; Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting Comments, Protests, and Motions To Intervene | |
| 80 FR 15200 - FFP Missouri 2, LLC; Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Prescriptions | |
| 80 FR 15209 - FFP Missouri 2, LLC; Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Prescriptions | |
| 80 FR 15204 - FFP Missouri 2, LLC; Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Prescriptions | |
| 80 FR 15206 - FFP Missouri 2, LLC; Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Prescriptions | |
| 80 FR 15204 - Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene and Protests | |
| 80 FR 15248 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Recovery Permit Applications | |
| 80 FR 15247 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Recovery Permit Applications | |
| 80 FR 15246 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Permits | |
| 80 FR 15256 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 15250 - Notice of Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board Meeting | |
| 80 FR 15262 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Amending its Information Barrier Rules | |
| 80 FR 15264 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Rules 6.74A and 6.74B | |
| 80 FR 15260 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Rule 4751(h)(5) Relating to Market Hours IOC Orders | |
| 80 FR 15211 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 80 FR 15212 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 80 FR 15196 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 80 FR 15179 - Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 15267 - 40th Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 206, Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services | |
| 80 FR 15270 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 80 FR 15163 - Medical Devices; Neurological Devices; Classification of the Limited Output Transcutaneous Piezoelectric Stimulator for Skin Reactions Associated With Insect Bites | |
| 80 FR 15217 - Electronic Submission of Lot Distribution Reports; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 80 FR 15214 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Registration of Producers of Drugs and Listing of Drugs in Commercial Distribution | |
| 80 FR 15268 - Nineteenth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 222, AMS(R)S | |
| 80 FR 15252 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Demonstration and Evaluation of the Short-Time Compensation (STC) Program (STC) Grants Program | |
| 80 FR 15220 - Prospective Grant of an Exclusive Commercial License Agreement: Development of 5T4 Antibody-Drug Conjugates for the Treatment of Human Cancers | |
| 80 FR 15218 - Prospective Grant of Exclusive License: The Development of Theranostic Kits for mTOR Analog-based Chemotherapy | |
| 80 FR 15226 - Prospective Grant of Start-up Exclusive Evaluation Option License Agreement: Pre-Clinical Evaluation and Commercial Development of Anti-Tyrosine Kinase-Like Orphan Receptor 1 Antibody-Drug Conjugates for the Treatment of Human Cancers | |
| 80 FR 15213 - National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 15226 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 15227 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 15229 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 15197 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Pell Grant Reporting Under the Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) System | |
| 80 FR 15196 - United States Air Force Academy Board of Visitors; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting; Cancellation | |
| 80 FR 15213 - Patient Safety Organizations: Voluntary Relinquishment From PSO Services Group | |
| 80 FR 15220 - Patient Safety Organizations: Expired Listing From Premerus PSO, LLC | |
| 80 FR 15224 - Solicitation for Nominations for Members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) | |
| 80 FR 15229 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 15222 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 15190 - Marine Mammals; File No. 17967 | |
| 80 FR 15224 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 15251 - Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From China, Russia, and Ukraine; Scheduling of Full Five-Year Reviews | |
| 80 FR 15189 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Scoping Process | |
| 80 FR 15190 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 15194 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 15191 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 15171 - Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 15147 - Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of Certain Appropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas | |
| 80 FR 15157 - Revisions to Rules of Practice | |
| 80 FR 15476 - Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2015 | |
| 80 FR 15173 - Corded Window Coverings: Notice of Extension of Comment Period | |
| 80 FR 15165 - Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 | |
| 80 FR 15176 - Safety Zone, Daytona Beach Grand Prix of the Seas; Atlantic Ocean; Daytona Beach, FL | |
| 80 FR 15340 - Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements | |
| 80 FR 15272 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Identification and Proposed Listing of Eleven Distinct Population Segments of Green Sea Turtles (Chelonia mydas) as Endangered or Threatened and Revision of Current Listings | |
| 80 FR 15152 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 15149 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes |
Food and Nutrition Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Final rule.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a final rule to redefine the geographic boundaries of several appropriated fund Federal Wage System (FWS) wage areas for pay-setting purposes. Based on recent reviews of Metropolitan Statistical Area boundaries in a number of wage areas, OPM is redefining the following wage areas: Washington, DC; Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg, MD; Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN; Charlotte, NC; Columbia, SC, and Southwestern Wisconsin. In addition, this final rule makes three minor corrections to the Miami, FL; Columbus, GA, and Kansas City, MO, wage areas.
Madeline Gonzalez, by telephone at (202) 606-2838 or by email at
On October 31, 2014, OPM issued a proposed rule (79 FR 64684) to redefine the following counties:
• Culpeper and Rappahannock Counties, VA, from the Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg, MD, area of application to the Washington, DC, area of application;
• Fillmore County, MN, from the Southwestern Wisconsin area of application to the Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, area of application; and
• Chester County, SC, from the Columbia, SC, area of application to the Charlotte, NC, area of application.
The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee, the national labor-management committee responsible for advising OPM on matters concerning the pay of FWS employees, reviewed and recommended these changes by consensus. The proposed rule had a 30-day comment period, during which OPM received no comments.
In addition, this final rule (1) updates the name of the Columbus Consolidated Government in the Columbus, GA, FWS wage area because Columbus is the official name of the entity resulting from the consolidation of the City of Columbus and Muscogee County in 1971; (2) updates the name of Dade County in the Miami, FL, FWS wage area because the name of Dade County was officially changed to Miami-Dade County in 1997; and (3) deletes the name of the St. Louis, MO, wage area from the list of area of application counties in the Kansas City, MO, wage area because, due to a formatting error, the name of the St. Louis wage area was incorrectly printed as if it was an area of application county in the Kansas City wage area. These corrections do not affect the pay of any FWS employees.
I certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they will affect only Federal agencies and employees.
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
Accordingly, OPM amends 5 CFR part 532 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; § 532.707 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-06-08 for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-100, -200, and -300 series airplanes. AD 2014-06-08 required repetitive functional checks of the nose and main landing gear, and corrective actions if necessary; and also provided optional terminating action modification for the repetitive functional checks. This new AD requires a terminating action modification. This AD was prompted by a report that the emergency downlock indication system (EDIS) had given a false landing gear down-and-locked indication and a determination that a terminating action modification is necessary to address the identified unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct a false down-and-locked landing gear indication, which, on landing, could result in possible collapse of the landing gear.
This AD becomes effective April 27, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of publications listed in this AD as of April 14, 2014 (79 FR 17390, March 28, 2014).
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email
Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2014-06-08, Amendment 39-17812 (79 FR 17390, March 28, 2014). AD 2014-06-08 applied to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-100, -200, and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-11, dated February 13, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes. The MCAI states:
During an in-service event where the landing gear control panel indicated an unsafe nose landing gear, the flight crew observed that all three green lights were illuminated on the emergency downlock indication system. The nose landing gear was not down and locked, and collapsed during landing.
Investigation found ambient light and wiring shorts can lead to incorrect illumination of the green lights on the emergency downlock indication system.
This [Canadian] AD mandates the functional check of the nose and main landing gear alternate indication phototransistors and the modification of the emergency downlock indication system [incorporation of Modsums 8Q101955, 8Q101968, and 8Q101969 as applicable].
The unsafe condition is a false down-and-locked landing gear indication, which, on landing, could result in possible collapse of the landing gear. The modification consists of installing certain new electrical components and cable assemblies.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. An anonymous commenter supported the NPRM (79 FR 62363, October 17, 2014).
We have revised paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD to clarify the affected airplanes identified in those paragraphs. This change does not affect the intent of those paragraphs.
In paragraph (g) of AD 2014-06-08, Amendment 39-17812 (79 FR 17390, March 28, 2014), the functional check and corrective actions are done in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-173, Revision A, dated December 17, 2012. That service information specifies to contact the manufacturer for further instructions if certain discrepancies are found. As noted in paragraph (j)(2) of AD 2014-06-08, “For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. . .” and “. . . corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they were approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent, or the DAH with a State of Design Authority's design organization approval, as applicable).”
To clarify the repair approval for the action specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, we have added an exception to paragraph (g) of this AD, including specific delegation approval language. The exception clarifies that where the service information specifies to contact the manufacturer for further instructions, this AD requires repairing using a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 62363, October 17, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 62363, October 17, 2014).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We estimate that this AD affects 85 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions that are required by AD 2014-06-08, Amendment 39-17812 (79 FR 17390, March 28, 2014), and retained in this AD take about 3 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 2014-06-08 is $21,675, or $255 per product, per inspection cycle.
We also estimate that it will take up to 40 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost up to $19,436 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be up to $1,941,060, or $22,836 per product.
We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
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.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective April 27, 2015.
This AD replaces AD 2014-06-08, Amendment 39-17812 (79 FR 17390, March 28, 2014).
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 003 through 672 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by a report that the emergency downlock indication system (EDIS) had given a false landing gear down-and-locked indication and a determination that a terminating action modification is necessary to address the identified unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct a false down-and-locked landing gear indication, which, on landing, could result in possible collapse of the landing gear.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-06-08, Amendment 39-17812 (79 FR 17390, March 28, 2014), with specific delegation approval language. Within 600 flight hours or 100 days, whichever occurs first, after April 14, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-06-08): Perform a functional check of the alternate indication phototransistors of the nose and main landing gear; and do all applicable corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-173, Revision A, dated December 17, 2012; except where Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-173, Revision A, dated December 17, 2012, specifies to contact the manufacturer for further instructions, before further, flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the functional check thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 flight hours or 100 days, whichever occurs first, until accomplishment of the applicable actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.
Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this AD. Accomplishment of the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes on which Bombardier ModSum 8/1519 is installed: Incorporate Modsum 8Q101968, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-33-56, Revision A, dated February 22, 2013.
(2) For airplanes on which Bombardier Modsums 8/0235, 8/0461, and 8/0534 are installed: Incorporate Modsum 8Q101955, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-176, Revision A, dated February 22, 2013.
(3) For airplanes on which Bombardier Modsum 8/0534 is not installed: Incorporate Modsum 8Q101969, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-177, dated October 9, 2013.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-173, dated October 28, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-33-56, dated February 11, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(3) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-176, dated February 11, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-11, dated February 13, 2014, for related information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on April 14, 2014 (79 FR 17390, March 28, 2014).
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-173, Revision A, dated December 17, 2012.
(ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-176, Revision A, dated February 22, 2013.
(iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-177, dated October 9, 2013.
(iv) Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-33-56, Revision A, dated February 22, 2013.
(4) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email
(5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(6) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-23-15 for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD 2014-23-15 required revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new, more restrictive airworthiness limitations. This new AD retains the requirement to revise the maintenance or inspection program and removes a conflicting requirement. This AD was prompted by a determination that certain limitations required by AD 2014-23-15 conflict with limitations required by another AD. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, and possible failure of certain life limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective March 23, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 2, 2015 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015).
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of August 22, 2011 (76 FR 42024, July 18, 2011).
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of November 7, 2007 (72 FR 56262, October 3, 2007).
We must receive comments on this AD by May 7, 2015.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Fax: 202-493-2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
On December 23, 2014, we issued AD 2014-23-15, Amendment 39-18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015), to supersede AD 2011-14-06, Amendment 39-16741 (76 FR 42024, July 18, 2011). AD 2014-23-15 applied to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD 2014-23-15 was prompted by the determination that more restrictive airworthiness limitations were necessary. AD 2014-23-15 required revising the maintenance program to incorporate new, more restrictive airworthiness limitations. We issued AD 2014-23-15 to prevent fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, and possible failure of certain life limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
AD 2014-23-15, Amendment 39-18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015), corresponds to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directives 2012-0008, dated January 16, 2012; and 2013-0147, dated July 16, 2013. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
Since we issued AD 2014-23-15, Amendment 39-18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015), we have determined that certain limitations required by AD 2014-23-15 conflict with limitations required by AD 2014-26-10, Amendment 39-18061 (80 FR 2813, January 21, 2015). Paragraph (n) of AD 2014-23-15 requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the airworthiness limitations specified in paragraphs (n)(1), (n)(2), and (n)(3) of AD 2014-23-15. Paragraph (n)(3) of AD 2014-23-15 references Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 4—Ageing Systems Maintenance, dated January 8, 2008. However, paragraph (g) of AD 2014-26-10 requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section, ALS Part 4, Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 01, dated June 15, 2012.
Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section, ALS Part 4, Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 01, dated June 15, 2012, contains the most recent airworthiness limitations for ALS Part 4. Therefore, Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 4—Ageing Systems Maintenance, dated January 8, 2008, should not be incorporated as required by AD 2014-23-15, Amendment 39-18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015). We have removed paragraph (n)(3) of AD 2014-23-15 from this AD. We have also revised the introductory text of paragraph (n) of this AD to refer only to paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) of this AD.
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 issuing this
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because operators must comply with the most recent airworthiness limitations, which are specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 4—Ageing Systems Maintenance, Revision 01, dated June 15, 2012, as required by AD 2014-26-10, Amendment 39-18061 (80 FR 2813, January 21, 2015). Since AD 2014-23-15, Amendment 39-18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015), requires an earlier version of the airworthiness limitations,
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 851 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 2014-23-15, Amendment 39-18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015), and retained in this AD take about 2 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 2014-23-15 is $170 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective March 23, 2015.
This AD replaces AD 2014-23-15, Amendment 39-18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015).
This AD applies to all Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes; certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Periodic Inspections.
This AD was prompted by a determination that certain limitations required by AD 2014-23-15, Amendment 39-18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015), conflict with limitations required by AD 2014-26-10, Amendment 39-18061 (80 FR 2813, January 21, 2015). We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, and possible failure of certain life limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity 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 2014-23-15, Amendment 39-18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015), with no changes. For Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes: Within 3 months after November 7, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-20-05, Amendment 39-15215 (72 FR 56262, October 3, 2007)), revise
This paragraph restates certain provisions of paragraph (h) of AD 2014-23-15, Amendment 39-18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015), with no changes. For Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes; except Model A319 airplanes on which Airbus Modifications 28238, 28162, and 28342 have been incorporated in production: Within 14 days after November 7, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-20-05, Amendment 39-15215 (72 FR 56262, October 3, 2007)), revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 7, dated December 2005 (approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on February 7, 2006); Issue 08, dated March 2006 (approved by the EASA on January 4, 2007); or Issue 09, dated November 2006 (approved by the EASA on May 21, 2007). Accomplish the actions in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 7, dated December 2005; Issue 08, dated March 2006; or Issue 09, dated November 2006; at the times specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 7, dated December 2005; Issue 08, dated March 2006; or Issue 09, dated November 2006; as applicable; except as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD. Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (j) or (n) of this AD, as applicable, terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
This paragraph restates certain provisions of paragraph (i) of AD 2014-23-15, Amendment 39-18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015), with no changes. For Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes: For any new or more restrictive life-limit introduced with Sub-part 1-2, Life Limits, and Sub-part 1-3, Demonstrated Fatigue Lives, of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, Revision 00, dated February 28, 2006, replace the part at the time specified in Sub-part 1-2, Life Limits, and Sub-part 1-3, Demonstrated Fatigue Lives, of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, Revision 00, dated February 28, 2006, or within 6 months after November 7, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-20-05, Amendment 39-15215 (72 FR 56262, October 3, 2007)), whichever is later. Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (n) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2014-23-15, Amendment 39-18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015), with no changes. Within 9 months after August 22, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-14-06, Amendment 39-16741 (76 FR 42024, July 18, 2011)): Revise the maintenance program by incorporating all maintenance requirements and associated airworthiness limitations specified in the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 10, dated October 2009; or Issue 11, dated September 2010. Comply with all applicable maintenance requirements and associated airworthiness limitations included in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 10, dated October 2009; or Issue 11, dated September 2010; except as provided by paragraph (k) of this AD. Accomplishing the actions required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD. Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (n) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD 2014-23-15, Amendment 39-18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015), with no changes. For new and more restrictive tasks introduced with Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 10, dated October 2009; or Issue 11, dated September 2010; as specified in table 1 to paragraph (k) of this AD: The initial compliance time for doing the tasks is specified in table 1 to paragraph (k) of this AD. Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (n) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
ALI Task 572050 refers to the outer wing dry bay and is comprised of extracts from three ALI Tasks 572004, 572020, and 572053. The threshold of ALI Task 572050 for the whole dry bay area is that of the lowest threshold of the source ALI tasks,
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of AD 2014-23-15, Amendment 39-18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015), with no changes. After the actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD have been accomplished, no alternative life limits, inspections, or inspection intervals may be used, except as provided by paragraphs (i) and (m) of this AD, and except as required by paragraphs (j) and (n) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (m) of AD 2014-23-15, Amendment 39-18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015), with no changes. After the actions specified in paragraph (j) of this AD have been accomplished, no alternative life limits, inspections, or inspection intervals may be used, except as required by paragraph (n) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (n) of AD 2014-23-15, Amendment 39-18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015), except that paragraph (n)(3) of AD 2014-23-15 is not retained. Within 30 days after March 2, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2014-23-15), revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the ALIs specified in paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) of this AD. The initial compliance time for the accomplishing the actions is at the applicable time specified in the ALIs specified in paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) of this AD; or within 4 months after March 2, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2014-23-15); whichever occurs later. Accomplishing these actions terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) of this AD.
(1) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, Revision 02, dated May 13, 2011.
(2) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—Damage-Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT ALI), Revision 02, dated May 28, 2013.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (o) of AD 2014-23-15, Amendment 39-18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015), with no changes. After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (n) of this AD, no alternative actions (
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 AD 2011-14-06, Amendment 39-16741 (76 FR 42024, July 18, 2011), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding actions of this AD.
(2)
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directives 2012-0008, dated January 16, 2012; and 2013-0147, dated July 16, 2013; for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on March 2, 2015 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015).
(i) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, Revision 02, dated May 13, 2011. The revision level of this document is identified on only the title page and in the Record of Revisions. The revision date is not identified on the title page of this document.
(ii) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—Damage-Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT ALI), Revision 02, dated May 28, 2013. The revision date of this document is not identified on the title page of this document.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on August 22, 2011 (76 FR 42024, July 18, 2011).
(i) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 10, dated October 2009. The revision level of this document is identified on only the title page and in the Record of Revisions.
(ii) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 11, dated September 2010. The revision level of this document is identified on only the title page and in the Record of Revisions.
(5) The following service information was approved for IBR on November 7, 2007 (72 FR 56262, October 3, 2007).
(i) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, Revision 00, dated February 28, 2006.
(ii) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 7, dated December 2005.
This document contains the following errors: The Summary of Changes is comprised of 11 pages, which are all identified as Page 2—LEP of Section LEP instead of Page 1—SOC [through] Page 11—SOC of Section SOC; the List of Effective Pages only refers to Page 1—SOC for the Summary of Changes. The List of Effective Pages is comprised of two pages, and both of those pages are identified as Page 2—LEP. The first page of Section 2 is identified as Page 6 of Section 1 and is not referred to in the List of Effective Pages.
(iii) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 08, dated March 2006.
This document contains the following errors: Pages 3—ROR and 2—SOC are not referred to in the List of Effective Pages. The List of Effective Pages is identified as Pages 1—SOC and 2—SOC, instead of 1—LEP and 2—LEP. The first page of Section 2 is identified as Page 6 of Section 1 and is not referred to in the List of Effective Pages.
(iv) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 09, dated November 2006.
(6) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness
(7) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(8) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Trade Commission.
Final rules.
The Commission is revising certain of its rules of practice to promote fairness, flexibility and efficiency in its investigations, studies, and adjudicative proceedings. These rule revisions include a revision to the rule governing the status of cases in administrative adjudication following a district court's denial of preliminary injunctive relief in an ancillary proceeding. Other changes include revisions to the list of Commission officials who have authority to modify the terms and timeframe for compliance with compulsory process, and a change to the deadline for the Commission to dispose of petitions to limit or quash compulsory process. In addition, the Commission is updating its procedures for accessing public records and list of exempt Privacy Act systems.
These rule revisions are effective on March 23, 2015.
Josephine Liu, Attorney, (202) 326-2170, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. For information about the revisions to 16 CFR part 4, contact G. Richard Gold, Attorney, (202) 326-3355, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
The Federal Trade Commission is revising certain rules in parts 2 and 3 of its rules of practice that govern investigations and adjudicative proceedings, and is revising other rules in part 4 of its rules of practice.
The Commission is amending Rules 2.7 and 2.10 to provide the Office of Policy Planning (“OPP”) Director and Deputy Directors with the authority to modify the terms of compliance with compulsory process, alter the meet-and-confer prerequisite, and extend the deadline for filing a petition to limit or quash compulsory process. This change reflects OPP's role in frequently conducting and leading studies under section 6(b) of the FTC Act. The Commission is also revising Rule 2.10(c) to impose a 40-day deadline for disposing of petitions to limit or quash compulsory process.
In part 3 of its Rules, the Commission is amending Rule 3.26 to make clear that administrative litigation will be suspended if respondents file a qualifying motion for withdrawal or dismissal after a district court denies preliminary injunctive relief in an ancillary proceeding brought under section 13(b) of the FTC Act. As discussed below, the Commission will continue to follow the 1995 Policy Statement Regarding Administrative Merger Litigation Following the Denial of a Preliminary Injunction
In part 4 of its Rules, the Commission is revising the procedures and contact information for accessing public records in Rule 4.9, making a technical correction to Rule 4.11, and updating the names of exempt Privacy Act systems in Rule 4.13.
Because these rule revisions relate solely to agency procedure and practice, publication for notice and comment is not required under the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
In 2012, the Commission undertook an extensive revision of its rules governing the conduct of its investigations.
The Commission is revising Rules 2.7(
The Commission revised Rule 2.10 in 2012 to eliminate the two-step procedure for rulings on petitions to limit or quash compulsory process by requiring the full Commission to rule on the petition in the first instance. The rule also imposed a 30-day deadline for disposition of the petition. The Commission received no comments regarding this provision, and adopted it as proposed, noting that if the Commission did not meet the deadline, the petition would not be automatically granted or denied.
Rule 3.26 sets out two procedures that facilitate Commission consideration of whether to pursue administrative merger litigation following judicial denial of preliminary injunctive relief in an ancillary proceeding brought under section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 53(b).
In revising Rule 3.26, the Commission is also making clear it will continue to consider the specific circumstances of each case when deciding whether to proceed with administrative litigation, as outlined in a 1995 Policy Statement
Rule 3.26, as first issued in 1995, provided that a motion for withdrawal would generally result in an automatic withdrawal and that a motion for dismissal would result in an automatic stay. The procedure for a withdrawal enabled
The alternative procedure in the 1995 Rule provided for an automatic stay of the adjudication if a respondent filed a motion to dismiss the administrative complaint and to brief the matter on the public record. The
Because of the long delays that often resulted from the filing of motions under the 1995 Rule, the Commission revised the rule in 2009.
Since 2009, the Commission has continued to be guided by the 1995 Policy Statement when determining whether to proceed with administrative litigation. For example, in
The Commission has now decided to return to the automatic mechanisms in the 1995 rule. The new rule now provides for an automatic withdrawal or automatic stay, depending on the type of motion filed. Because the Commission is retaining the deadlines in the 2009 rule for the filing of motions and specifying deadlines for Commission determinations of the motions, an automatic withdrawal or stay is not likely to disrupt the resolution of the matter.
First, respondents may move to have the administrative case withdrawn from adjudication. The Commission is retaining the provision in the 2009 rule that motions for withdrawal can be filed jointly or separately, so long as all of the respondents agree to seek withdrawal. The administrative case will automatically be withdrawn two days after the motion is filed, unless complaint counsel files an objection asserting that the procedural requirements have not been satisfied,
Second, any respondent may file a motion for dismissal that will be briefed on the public record. The administrative case will automatically be stayed until 7 days after the Commission rules on the motion for dismissal, and all deadlines established by the rules will be tolled for the amount of time the proceeding is stayed.
As noted above, the Commission is retaining the 2009 rule's timing requirements for such motions but simplifying the wording in Rule 3.26(b). If the Commission does not file a motion with the court of appeals for relief pending appeal within 7 days following the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, the Rule 3.26 motion must be filed within 14 days after the denial of the preliminary injunction. If the Commission files a motion with the court of appeals for relief pending appeal, the Rule 3.26 motion must be filed within 14 days after, but no earlier than, denial by the court of appeals of the Commission's motion for relief pending appeal.
In addition, in order to expedite these proceedings, the Commission is specifying deadlines for deciding motions under Rule 3.26. If respondents file a motion for withdrawal under Rule 3.26(c) and complaint counsel files an objection, the Commission must rule on the motion within 10 days of the objection. If respondents file a motion for dismissal under Rule 3.26(d), the Commission is retaining the requirement of the current rule that the Commission decide such motions within 30 days.
The Commission is retaining current Rule 3.26(e), which sets out the requirements for memoranda filed in support of or in opposition to these motions, and retaining with minor changes Rule 3.26(f), which sets out the requirements for filings that contain
Finally, the Commission is making one other, minor modification to the rule: the timeframe for complaint counsel to respond to motions for dismissal has been shortened from 14 days to 7 days.
The Commission is making a number of non-substantive changes to the part 3 rules to correct typographical errors, ensure consistency in the terminology and the requirements in different sections of the rules, clarify paragraph headings, and delete or restore material that was inadvertently retained or deleted when the Commission last amended the rules in 2011.
Rule 3.22(a) is being amended to clarify that Rule 3.22(a) does not govern the presentation and timing requirements for motions under Rule 3.26. Similarly, Rule 3.22(b) is being revised to reflect the fact that, under the Commission's rules, the filing of certain motions automatically stays the proceedings. In particular, motions under Rule 3.26(d) as revised by this notice and some motions under existing Rule 3.25(c) will result in automatic stays. For the same reasons, the Commission is amending Rule 3.41(f) by adding a cross-reference to Rule 3.26, to make clear that Rule 3.41(f) does not govern in situations where Rule 3.26 applies.
Rule 3.23(b) is being amended to clarify that a party opposing interlocutory review may file an answer to both (1) the initial request for determination that is filed with the ALJ, and (2) the subsequent application for review that is filed with the Commission. Existing Rule 3.23(b) could create confusion about whether the first type of answer is permitted, because the rule does not expressly authorize answers to initial requests but nonetheless mentions the deadline for filing such answers.
The general discovery provisions were previously amended in 2009 to prohibit filing discovery materials with the Secretary, except in certain circumstances. See 16 CFR 3.31(h). To ensure consistency with the 2009 amendment, the Commission is now (1) eliminating the requirement in Rule 3.32(a) and (b) that requests for admissions and responses thereto be filed with the Secretary, and (2) revising the paragraph heading for Rule 3.33(c)(2) and clarifying the text of that paragraph. The Commission is also eliminating redundant text for two numbers mentioned in Rule 3.32(a) and (b), as well as correcting a typographical error in the last sentence of Rule 3.32(b).
To maintain consistency in how the terms “prehearing” and “subpoenas” are used throughout the part 3 rules, the Commission is revising Rules 3.35(b)(2) and 3.42(c)(2).
The Commission is revising Rule 3.45(e) to reflect the fact that the parties who submit documents containing
In Rule 3.46(c)(4), an erroneous reference to the public or nonpublic status of each “exhibit” in the witness index is being replaced with “witness testimony.”
The Commission's public record regulation, 16 CFR 4.9, sets out procedures and contact information for accessing public record materials. The Commission is amending Rule 4.9(a)(1), (2), (3), (4), and 10(viii), 16 CFR 4.9(a)(1), (2), (3), (4), and (10)(viii), to reflect updates to these procedures and contact information. The revised rule states that these materials are available either electronically at the FTC's Web site,
Under the prior policy, the FTC's Consumer Response Center (CRC) maintained an in-person physical reading room at the Headquarters building, where members of the public could inspect records and file public record requests. Once requests were received, the CRC worked with the Commission's Records and Filings Office, which researched public record requests, retrieved documents from storage, and provided them to CRC staff and authorized contractors to distribute to the requestors to review and make copies in the physical reading room.
The CRC no longer maintains a physical reading room. To obtain a copy of any public records not available on the agency's Web site, members of the public can call the Reading Room, which is now staffed by the FTC's Library.
The Commission is amending Rule 4.11(a)(1)(i)(F) to conform with recent changes made to Rule 4.8(d)(3), which granted Freedom of Information Act requesters twenty calendar days to respond to Commission notification when there was no fee agreement for processing a request and the estimated costs exceed $25.
The Commission is making technical corrections and updates to its Privacy Act rules at 16 CFR 4.13(m). Paragraph
(1) Investigatory materials maintained by an agency component in connection with any activity relating to criminal law enforcement, exempt under subsection (j)(2) of the Privacy Act (see paragraph (m)(1) of the rules);
(2) investigatory materials compiled for law enforcement purposes, exempt under subsection (k)(2) of the Privacy Act (see paragraph (m)(2) of the rules); or
(3) investigatory materials compiled to determine suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment, military service, Federal contracts, or access to classified information, but only where disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source of information, exempt under subsection (k)(5) of the Privacy Act (see paragraph (m)(3) of the rules).
These Privacy Act systems are exempted from certain Privacy Act restrictions and procedural requirements (
Administrative practice and procedure.
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Public record.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Trade Commission amends title 16, chapter I, subchapter A of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
15 U.S.C. 46, unless otherwise noted.
(l)
(a) * * *
(5)
(c)
15 U.S.C. 46, unless otherwise noted.
(a)
(b)
(b)
(a) This section sets forth two procedures by which respondents may obtain consideration of whether continuation of an adjudicative proceeding is in the public interest after a court has denied preliminary injunctive relief in a separate proceeding brought under section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 53(b), in aid of the adjudicative proceeding.
(b) A motion under this section shall be addressed to the Commission and must be filed within 14 days after, but no earlier than:
(1) A district court has denied the Commission's request for a preliminary injunction, if the Commission has not filed a motion for relief pending appeal with the court of appeals within 7 days following the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction; or
(2) A court of appeals has denied a Commission motion for relief pending appeal.
(c)
(d)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(e)
(f)
(a) At any time after 30 days after issuance of a complaint, or after publication of notice of an adjudicative hearing in a rulemaking proceeding under § 3.13, any party may serve on any other party a written request for admission of the truth of any matters relevant to the pending proceeding set forth in the request that relate to statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact, including the genuineness of any documents described in the request. Copies of documents shall be served with the request unless they have been or are otherwise furnished or are known to be, and in the request are stated as being, in the possession of the other party. Each matter of which an admission is requested shall be separately set forth.
(b) The matter is admitted unless, within 10 days after service of the request, or within such shorter or longer time as the Administrative Law Judge may allow, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a sworn written answer or objection addressed to the matter. If objection is made, the reasons therefor shall be stated. The answer shall specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. A denial shall fairly meet the substance of the requested admission, and when good faith requires that a party qualify its answer or deny only a part of the matter of which an admission is requested, the party shall specify so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder. An answering party may not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information known to or readily obtainable by the party is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny. A party who considers that a matter of which an admission has been requested presents a genuine issue for trial may not, on that ground alone, object to the request; the party may deny the matter or set forth reasons why the party cannot admit or deny it.
(c) * * *
(2)
(b) * * *
(2) An interrogatory otherwise proper is not necessarily objectionable merely because an answer to the interrogatory involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, but such an interrogatory need not be answered until after designated discovery has been completed, but in no case later than 3 days before the final prehearing conference.
(f)
(i) Unless a court of competent jurisdiction, or the Commission for good cause, so directs; or
(ii) Except as provided in § 3.26.
(2) A stay shall toll any deadlines set by the rules.
(c) * * *
(2) To issue subpoenas and orders requiring answers to questions;
(e)
(f)
(c) * * *
(4) A statement whether the witness testimony has been accorded
(a) * * *
(2) If no objections to the initial decision are filed, the Commission may in its discretion hold oral argument within 10 days after the deadline for the filing of objection, and will issue its final decision pursuant to § 3.54 within 45 days after oral argument. If no oral argument is scheduled, the Commission will issue its final decision pursuant to § 3.54 within 45 days after the deadline for the filing of objections.
15 U.S.C. 46, unless otherwise noted.
(a)
(2) Materials that are exempt from mandatory public disclosure, or are otherwise not available from the Commission's public record, may be made available only upon request under the procedures set forth in § 4.11, or as provided in §§ 4.10(d) through (g), 4.13, and 4.15(b)(3), or by the Commission.
(3)
(4)
(10)
(viii) The Commission's annual report submitted after the end of each fiscal year, summarizing its work during the year (with copies obtainable from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
(a)
(F)
(m)
(i) I-7—Office of Inspector General Investigative Files—FTC.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), investigatory materials compiled for law enforcement purposes in the following systems of records are exempt from subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), and (f) of 5 U.S.C. 552a, and from the provisions of this section, except as otherwise provided in 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2):
(i) I-1—Nonpublic Investigational and Other Nonpublic Legal Program Records—FTC.
(ii) I-2—Disciplinary Action Investigatory Files—FTC.
(iii) I-4—Clearance Application and Response Files—FTC.
(iv) I-5—Matter Management System—FTC.
(v) I-7—Office of Inspector General Investigative Files—FTC.
(vi) I-8—Stenographic Reporting Services Request System—FTC.
(vii) II-3—Worker's Compensation—FTC.
(viii) II-6—Discrimination Complaint System—FTC.
(ix) IV-1—Consumer Information System—FTC.
(x) V-1—Freedom of Information Act Requests and Appeals—FTC.
(xi) V-2—Privacy Act Requests and Appeals—FTC.
(xii) VII-6—Document Management and Retrieval System—FTC.
(3) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), investigatory materials compiled to determine suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment, military service, Federal contracts, or access to classified information, but only where disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source of information, in the following systems of records are exempt from subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), and (f) of 5 U.S.C. 552a, and from the provisions of this section, except as otherwise provided in 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5):
(i) II-4—Employment Application-Related Records—FTC.
(ii) II-11—Personnel Security, Identity Management and Access Control Records System—FTC.
By direction of the Commission.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the limited output transcutaneous piezoelectric stimulator for skin reactions associated with insect bites into class II (special controls). The special controls that will apply to the device are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the limited output transcutaneous piezoelectric stimulator for skin reactions associated with insect bites' classification. The Agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device.
This order is effective March 23, 2015. The classification was applicable on November 7, 2014.
Michael Hoffman, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1434, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6476,
In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976), generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval, unless and until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines
Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), provides two procedures by which a person may request FDA to classify a device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1). Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that has not previously been classified and, within 30 days of receiving an order classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2). Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and then a request for classification under the first procedure, the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence and requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. If the person submits a request to classify the device under this second procedure, FDA may decline to undertake the classification request if FDA identifies a legally marketed device that could provide a reasonable basis for review of substantial equivalence with the device or if FDA determines that the device submitted is not of “low-moderate risk” or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls to mitigate the risks cannot be developed.
In response to a request to classify a device under either procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA will classify the device by written order within 120 days. This classification will be the initial classification of the device.
On September 8, 2010, Ecobrands, Ltd., submitted a request for classification of the Zap-It! under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. Subsequently, on February 14, 2013, Tecnimed S.r.l., submitted a similar request for classification of the Zanza-Click, Mini-Click, and Disc-o-Click under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. Both manufacturers recommended that the devices be classified into class II (Refs. 1 and 2).
In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed the requests in order to classify the devices under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1). FDA classifies devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the requests, FDA determined that the devices can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the devices.
Therefore, on November 7, 2014, FDA issued orders to both requestors classifying the devices into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the devices by adding 21 CFR 882.5894.
Following the effective date of this final classification order, any firm submitting a premarket notification (510(k)) for a limited output transcutaneous piezoelectric stimulator for skin reactions associated with insect bites will need to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The device is assigned the generic name limited output transcutaneous piezoelectric stimulator for skin reactions associated with insect bites, and it is identified as a device intended to alleviate skin reactions associated with insect bites via cutaneous, piezoelectric stimulation at the local site of the bite.
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device, as well as the mitigation measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
FDA believes that the following special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness:
• Appropriate testing to characterize the electrical output specifications of the device (
• Mechanical bench testing must demonstrate that the device will withstand the labeled number duration of uses.
• All elements of the device that may contact the patient must be assessed to be biocompatible.
• Labeling must include:
○ Validated instructions which addresses the following:
Identification of areas of the body which are appropriate and not appropriate for contact with the device;
whether use of the device in conjunction with flammable materials (
use of the device on or near implanted devices; and
how to identify the correct type of skin condition.
○ Technical parameters of the device (maximum output voltage (instantaneous), maximum output current (instantaneous), and pulse duration).
○ Language to direct end users to contact the device manufacturer and
○ The anticipated number of device uses prior to failure.
Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act, if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. Therefore, this device type is exempt from premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device need not submit to FDA a premarket notification, prior to marketing the device, which contains information about the limited output transcutaneous piezoelectric stimulator for skin reactions associated with insect bites they intend to market.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
The following references have been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and are available electronically at
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 882 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.
(a)
(b)
(1) Appropriate testing to characterize the electrical output specifications of the device (
(2) Mechanical bench testing must demonstrate that the device will withstand the labeled number duration of uses.
(3) All elements of the device that may contact the patient must be assessed to be biocompatible.
(4) Labeling must include:
(i) Validated instructions which addresses the following:
(A) Identification of areas of the body which are appropriate and not appropriate for contact with the device.
(B) Whether use of the device in conjunction with flammable materials (
(C) Use of the device on or near implanted devices.
(D) How to identify the correct type of skin condition.
(ii) Technical parameters of the device (maximum output voltage (instantaneous), maximum output current (instantaneous), and pulse duration).
(iii) Language to direct end users to contact the device manufacturer and MedWatch if they experience any adverse events with this device.
(iv) The anticipated number of device uses prior to failure.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Final rule.
The Department of the Navy (DoN) is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, as amended (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (DAJAG)(Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS JOHN WARNER (SSN 785) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship. The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply.
This rule is effective March 23, 2015 and is applicable beginning January 28, 2015.
Commander Theron R. Korsak, (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave. SE., Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066, telephone 202-685-5040.
Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR part 706.
This amendment provides notice that the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS JOHN WARNER (SSN 785) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I,
Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions.
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Vessels.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the DoN amends part 706 of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1605.
The additions read as follows:
25. * * *
26. * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the 2015 Lake Havasu Desert Storm marine event special local regulations from 8 a.m. through 3 p.m. on April 25, 2015. This annual marine event occurs on the navigable waters of the Colorado River in Lake Havasu, Arizona. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, 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 in 33 CFR 100.1102, Table 1, Item 4 will be enforced from 8 a.m. through 3 p.m. on April 25, 2015. If the event is delayed by inclement weather, these regulations will also be enforced from 8 a.m. through 3 p.m. on April 26, 2015.
If you have questions on this document, call or email Petty Officer Nick Bateman, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone 619-278-7656,
The Coast Guard will enforce the Special Local Regulations in Lake Havasu for the 2015 Desert Storm Shootout in 33 CFR 100.1102, Table 1, Item 4 from 8 a.m. through 3 p.m. on April 25, 2015. If the event is delayed by inclement weather, these regulations will also be enforced from 8 a.m. through 3 p.m. on April 26, 2015.
Under provisions of 33 CFR 100.1102, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within the regulated area, unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the special local regulations may request permission from the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or Local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.1102 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). 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 to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the waters of Delaware River in the vicinity of Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania. The safety zone will temporarily restrict vessel traffic from transiting or anchoring in a portion of Marcus Hook anchorage in order to protect the safety of life and property on the waters while underwater impulsive sound testing is conducted.
This rule is effective without actual notice from March 23, 2015 until 6 p.m. on May 12, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 5 a.m. on March 10, 2015, until March 23, 2015.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0129]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email. If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email Lieutenant Brennan Dougherty, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Chief Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone (215) 271-4851, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule as publishing an NPRM is impracticable because immediate action is necessary to protect the maritime public. The Coast Guard was notified on February 24, 2015, of the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority's final intentions to conduct these tests in the upper portion of Marcus Hook anchorage. Because of the inherent threat to navigation, providing a notice and comment period would be impractical. Furthermore, allowing this situation to exist without a safety zone in place would expose mariners and the public to unnecessary dangers contrary to the public interest. Vessels transiting or attempting to transit through the area may be at risk, and therefore a safety zone is needed to protect the public from the hazards associated with underwater impulsive sound testing. Therefore, delay in taking action is both impracticable and contrary to public interest. For the reasons stated above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The Philadelphia Regional Port Authority (PRPA), in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Philadelphia District, will conduct tests to determine the feasibility of using loud impulsive sound to behaviorally exclude two species of endangered sturgeon from the areas where blasting will be performed for the Delaware River Main Channel Deepening Project starting in December 2015. These tests will be conducted in the upper portion of the Marcus Hook Anchorage, where sturgeon are known to commonly occur, and as far north within the anchorage as possible to minimize potential impacts to commercial vessel traffic. The tests will require anchoring a barge with the sound-producing equipment (using spuds) on the edge of, but not within, the anchorage. The barge, 40′ wide by 100′ long, will be equipped with anchor lighting meeting U.S. Coast Guard requirements. Nine acoustic telemetry receivers will be deployed within the test area. The telemetry receivers will be deployed on bottom-set moorings with no surface marker floats or buoys. To reduce the possibility of vessel interference with the tests, and to prevent damage to, or displacement of, the telemetry receivers a safety zone is necessary.
To mitigate the risks associated with the underwater impulsive sound testing in Marcus Hook anchorage, the Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay will enforce a temporary safety zone in the upper portion of Anchorage 7 off Marcus Hook, as described in § 110.157(a)(8) of this chapter. The safety zone will be effective and enforced from 5 a.m. on March 10, 2015, to 6 p.m. on May 12, 2015. If this safety zone should be cancelled earlier the Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay will notify mariners via broadcast on VHF Ch.16.
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, or her on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, or her on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF channel 16 or at 215-271-4807.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. Although this regulation will restrict access to the regulated area, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) The Coast Guard will make extensive notification of the Safety Zone to the maritime public via maritime advisories so mariners can alter their plans accordingly; (ii) this rule will be enforced for a limited duration.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reason: Vessel traffic will be allowed to pass through the zone with permission of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Delaware Bay or her designated representative and the zone is limited in duration. Sector Delaware Bay will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the Salem River.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 165, applicable to safety zones on the navigable waterways. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(c)
(1) All persons or vessels wishing to transit through the Safety Zone described in paragraph (a) of this section must request authorization to do so from the Captain of the Port or her designated representative 30 minutes prior to the intended time of transit.
(2) Vessels granted permission to transit must do so in accordance with the directions provided by the Captain of the Port or her designated representative.
(3) To seek permission to transit the Safety Zone, the Captain of the Port's representative can be contacted via marine radio VHF Channel 16 or at 215-271-4807.
(4) This section applies to all vessels wishing to transit through the Safety Zone except vessels that are engaged in the following operations:
(i) Enforcing laws;
(ii) Servicing aids to navigation; and
(iii) Emergency response vessels.
(5) No person or vessel may enter or remain in a safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port;
(6) Each person and vessel in a safety zone shall obey any direction or order of the Captain of the Port;
(7) No person may board, or take, or place any article or thing on board, any vessel in a safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port; and
(8) No person may take or place any article or thing upon any waterfront facility in a safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port.
(d)
(e)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA-23-250, PA-24-250, PA-24-260, PA-24-400, PA-30, PA-31, PA-31-300, PA-31P, PA-39, and PA-E23-250 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an accident caused by fuel starvation where the shape of the wing fuel tanks and fuel below a certain level in that tank may have allowed the fuel to move away from the tank outlet during certain maneuvers. This proposed AD would require installing a fuel system management placard on the aircraft instrument panel and adding text to the Limitations section of the pilot's operating handbook (POH)/airplane flight manual (AFM). We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 7, 2015.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Fax: 202-493-2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer Service, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: (877) 879-0275; fax: none; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Ansel James, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; telephone: (404) 474-5576; fax: (404) 474-5606; 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 of an accident where the shape of the wing fuel tanks on Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA-23-250, PA-24-250, PA-24-260, PA-24-400, PA-30, PA-31, PA-31-300, PA-31P, PA-39, and PA-E23-250 airplanes, combined with fuel below a certain level in the selected tank, may have allowed the fuel to move away from the tank outlet during certain maneuvers causing fuel starvation. These airplanes do not have baffles in the fuel tanks. Baffles in the fuel tanks slow the movement of fuel in the tank during certain maneuvers and prevent the unsafe condition. Certain maneuvers, such as prolonged turns during taxi prior to takeoff and inflight maneuvers like prolonged slips and skids at any pitch attitude, can cause the fuel in the tanks to temporarily move away from the tank outlet. This could result in an interruption in the flow of the fuel to the engine. It was also noted, the manufacturer insufficiently defined procedures for low fuel operation. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to loss of engine power or engine shutdown, which may result in loss of control.
We reviewed Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated December 16, 2014. Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated December 16, 2014, calls for/describes actions for, when necessary, installing the correct fuel warning placard on the instrument panel and adding correct text of that fuel warning placard in the Limitations section of the POH/AFM. This service information is reasonably available; see
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.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 3,000 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary placard/POH/AFM order and installation 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 any necessary placard/POH/AFM order and installation:
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 May 7, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA-23-250, PA-24-250, PA-24-260, PA-24-400, PA-30, PA-31, PA-31-300, PA-31P, PA-39, and PA-E23-250 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated December 16, 2014.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 1130, PLACARDS AND MARKINGS; Interior Placards.
This AD was prompted by an accident caused by fuel starvation where the shape of the wing fuel tanks and fuel below a certain level in that tank may have allowed the fuel to move away from the tank outlet during certain maneuvers. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of engine power due to fuel starvation. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to loss of engine power or engine shutdown, which may result in loss of control.
Unless already done, within the next 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD, do the actions in paragraphs (g) and (h), as applicable, including all subparagraphs:
(1) Inspect the fuel warning placard, if existing, following the Instructions section, of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated December 16, 2014. If the placard is present and compliant with the Instructions section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated December 16, 2014, then no further action regarding the placard is required.
(2) If the fuel warning placard is not present or not compliant with the Instructions section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated December 16, 2014, then order or, as applicable, fabricate, and install the applicable fuel warning placard following the Instructions section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated December 16, 2014. You may order the applicable placard from Piper Aircraft, Inc. at the address identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD.
(1) Inspect the Limitations section of the applicable POH/AFM following the Instructions section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated December 16, 2014.
(2) If the Limitations section of the applicable POH/AFM contains the exact text found in table 2 of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated December 16, 2014, there is no need for a POH/AFM revision.
(3) If the Limitations section of the applicable POH/AFM does not contain the exact text found in table 2, a POH/AFM revision is required. Contact Piper Aircraft, Inc. at the address identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD and request the applicable POH/AFM revision.
(1) The Manager, Atlanta 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 (j)(1) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Ansel James, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; telephone: (404) 474-5576; fax: (404) 474-5606; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer Service, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: (877) 879-0275; fax: none; email:
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in the
The comment period for the ANPR published on January 16, 2015 (80 FR 2327), is extended. Comments must be received by Monday, June 1, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2013-0028, by any of the following methods:
Rana Balci-Sinha, Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850, telephone 301-987-2584, email
On October 8, 2014, the Commission granted a petition to initiate a rulemaking to develop a mandatory safety standard for window coverings. The petition sought to prohibit window covering cords when a feasible cordless alternative exists. The petition requested that all window covering cords be made inaccessible by using passive guarding devices when a feasible cordless alternative does not exist. On January 16, 2015, the Commission published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) initiating rulemaking and seeking information and comment on regulatory options for a mandatory rule to address the risk of strangulation to young children on window covering cords. 80 FR 2327. The comment period on the ANPR was scheduled to end on March 17, 2015.
In a letter dated February 2, 2015, the Window Covering Manufacturers Association (WCMA) requested a 75-day extension of the comment period to complete multiple studies that WCMA commissioned. WCMA states that the request is “based on the need for sufficient opportunity to develop and present a more factual record for CPSC's consideration to permit a well-informed analysis before considering whether the agency can move to the next stage of promulgating such a significant rule.”
The Commission has considered WCMA's request. The Commission will grant WCMA's request to extend the comment period for the ANPR until June 1, 2015. The extension will allow WCMA and any other party additional time to complete studies related to questions asked in the ANPR.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone on the navigable waters of the Chesapeake Bay in Cape Charles, VA. This proposed safety zone would restrict vessel movement in the specified area during the Cape Charles Clam Slam fireworks display between 9:30 p.m. and 10 p.m. on August 1, 2015. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life and property on the surrounding navigable waters during the fireworks displays.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 22, 2015.
You may submit comments identified by docket number using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LCDR Gregory Knoll, Waterways Management Division Chief, Sector Hampton Roads, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 668-5580, email
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
We do not plan to hold a public meeting, but you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under
The town of Cape Charles has not held a Clam Slam fireworks display in the past. However, this same location is used for other fireworks displays throughout the year as published in 33 CFR 165.506.
The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The purpose of this safety zone is to protect mariners and spectators from the
The Captain of the Port of Hampton Roads proposes to establish a safety zone on specified waters of the Chesapeake Bay within a 700 foot radius of the approximate position: 37°15′47″ N/076°01′29″ W (NAD 1983), at the end of Bayshore Road located in the vicinity of Cape Charles Harbor, Cape Charles, Virginia. This safety zone will be enforced on August 1, 2015 between the hours of 9:30 p.m. and 10 p.m. Access to the safety zone will be restricted during the specified date and time.
Spectator vessels may gather nearby to view the fireworks display. Due to the need for vessel control during the fireworks display, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Except for vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the safety zone. The Captain of the Port will provide advance notice of the safety zone by all appropriate means to provide the widest dissemination of notice among the affected segments of the public. This will include publication in the Local Notice to Mariners and Marine Information Broadcasts.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The primary impact of these regulations will be on vessels wishing to transit the affected waterways during the safety zone on the Chesapeake Bay in the vicinity of Cape Charles, VA from 9:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. on August 1, 2015. Although this safety zone temporarily restricts traffic from transiting a portion of the Chesapeake Bay during this event, this safety zone is limited in duration, affects only a limited area, and will be well publicized in advance to allow mariners to make alternative plans for transiting the affected area.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the waters of the Chesapeake Bay near Cape Charles Harbor during the outlined timeframe.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) The safety zone is limited in size and duration, and (ii) before the enforcement period, maritime advisories will be issued allowing mariners to adjust their plans accordingly.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the establishment of a safety zone. This proposed rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34-g of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) The operator of any vessel in the immediate vicinity of this safety zone shall:
(i) Contact on scene contracting vessels via VHF channel 13 and 16 for passage instructions.
(ii) If on scene proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on shore or on board a vessel that is displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
(3) The Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads can be reached through the Sector Duty Officer at Sector Hampton Roads in Portsmouth, Virginia at telephone number (757) 668-5555.
(4) The Coast Guard Representatives enforcing the safety zone may be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65Mhz) and channel 16 (156.8 Mhz).
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean east of Daytona Beach, Florida during the Daytona Beach Grand Prix of the Seas, a series of high-speed personal watercraft boat races. This proposed safety zone would be enforced from 7 a.m. on Friday until 7 p.m. on Sunday during the last weekend in April. Approximately 50 high-speed personal watercrafts are anticipated to participate in the races, and approximately 20 spectator vessels are expected to attend the event. This safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the races. The regulated area would consist of the following location: All waters of the Atlantic Ocean encompassed within the following points: starting at Point 1 in position 29°14.601′ N, 81°00.767′ W; thence south to Point 2 in position 29°13.677′ N, 81°00.283′ W; thence east to Point 3 in position 29°13.860′ N, 080°59.763′ W; thence north to Point 4 in position 29°14.781′ N, 80°59.802′ W; thence west back to origin. All persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels participating in the high-speed personal watercraft event, are prohibited from entering, transiting, anchoring, or remaining in the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard by April 22, 2015. Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on or before March 24, 2015.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2014-1079 using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
Lieutenant Allan Storm, Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville, Chief of Waterways Management, telephone (904) 564-7563, email
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting, but you may submit a request for one on or before March 24, 2015 using one of the methods specified under
The legal basis for the proposed rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.
The purpose of the proposed rule is to ensure safety of life and property on navigable waters of the United States during the Daytona Beach Grand Prix of the Seas.
Powerboat P1-USA hosts the Daytona Beach Grand Prix of the Sea, a series of high-speed personal watercraft boat races, every year on the last weekend of April.
The proposed rule would establish a safety zone that encompasses certain waters of the Atlantic Ocean east of Daytona Beach, Florida. Approximately 50 high-speed personal watercrafts are anticipated to participate in the races, and approximately 20 spectator vessels are expected to attend the event.
This proposed safety zone would be enforced from 7 a.m. on Friday until 7 p.m. on Sunday during the last weekend in April. The regulated area would consist of the following location: (1) All waters of the Atlantic Ocean encompassed within the following points: starting at Point 1 in position 29°14.601′ N, 81°00.767′ W; thence south to Point 2 in position 29°13.677′ N, 81°00.283′ W; thence east to Point 3 in position 29°13.860′ N, 080°59.763′ W; thence north to Point 4 in position 29°14.781′ N, 80°59.802′ W; thence west back to origin. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Jacksonville via telephone at (904) 564-7513, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain in the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice to the maritime community when this safety zone will be in effect via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or by on-scene designated representatives.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented
The economic impact of this proposed rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone would be enforced for a total of only 36 hours over the course of three days; (2) although persons and vessels would not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative, they would be able to operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) persons and vessels would still be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone if authorized by the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard would provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or by on-scene designated representative.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the portion of the Atlantic Ocean encompassed within the safety zone from 7 a.m. on Friday until 7:00 p.m. on Sunday during the last weekend in April. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.
(a)
(1)
(b)
(c)
(1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from:
(A) Entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless participating in the event.
(2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Jacksonville via telephone at (904) 564-7513, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain in the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative.
(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice to the maritime community when this safety zone will be in effect via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or by on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
Notice of advisory committee meeting.
On May 23, 2013, we, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board), established the Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee (Committee) to advise us on revising and updating our accessibility guidelines issued pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act for transportation vehicles that operate on fixed guideway systems (
The Committee will meet on April 23, 2015, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and on April 24, 2015, from 9:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Access Board Conference Room, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Call-in information and a communication access real-time translation (CART) web streaming link will be posted on the Access Board's Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee Web site page at
Paul Beatty, Office of Technical and Information Services, Access Board, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone number (202) 272-0012 (Voice); (202) 272-0072 (TTY). Electronic mail address:
On May 23, 2013, we published a notice announcing that we were establishing a Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee (Committee) to make recommendations to us on matters associated with revising and updating our accessibility guidelines issued pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act for transportation vehicles that operate on fixed guideway systems (
The Committee will hold its sixth meeting on April 23, 2015, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and on April 24, 2015, from 9:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The preliminary agenda for the April meeting includes deliberation of committee member concerns pertaining to the accessibility of rail vehicles and consideration of process-related matters. The preliminary meeting agenda, along with information about the Committee, is available on our Web site at
The Committee meeting will be open to the public and interested persons can attend the meetings and communicate their views. Members of the public will have opportunities to address the Committee on issues of interest to them during a public comment period scheduled each day. The meetings will be accessible to persons with disabilities. An assistive listening system, communication access real-time translation (CART), and sign language interpreters will be provided. Persons attending the meetings are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances for the comfort of other participants (see
Persons wishing to provide handouts or other written information to the Committee are requested to provide electronic formats to Paul Beatty via email at least five business days prior to
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
On July 17, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published proposed amendments to the new source performance standards (NSPS) for the Oil and Natural Gas Sector. One of the issues addressed in the proposed amendments was the EPA's proposed definition of “low pressure gas well.” A petitioner's timely submitted comment on the proposed amendments concerning the definition was, inadvertently, not made part of the record in the rulemaking docket and was, therefore, not available to be considered by the EPA when the agency finalized the definition of “low pressure gas well” in its December 19, 2014, final amendments to the NSPS. To correct the above mentioned procedural defect, the EPA is re-proposing its definition of “low pressure gas well” for notice and comment. The EPA is also soliciting comment on certain issues raised in the missed comment.
We are also proposing to amend the NSPS to remove provisions concerning storage vessels connected or installed in parallel and to revise the definition of “storage vessel”. The EPA is granting reconsideration of the issue.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Mr. Bruce Moore, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5460; facsimile number: (919) 685-3200; email address:
Categories and entities potentially affected by today's action include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 60.4 (General Provisions).
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the World Wide Web (WWW). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this proposed action will be posted at the following address:
We seek comment only on the aspects of the final NSPS for the Oil and Natural Gas Sector specifically identified in this proposed rule. We are not opening for reconsideration any other provisions of the NSPS at this time.
Do not submit CBI to the EPA through
On August 23, 2011 (76 FR 52758), the EPA proposed the Oil and Natural Gas Sector NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOO). Among the elements of the proposed rule were provisions for reduced emission completion (REC), also known as “green completion” of hydraulically fractured gas wells. In the proposal, the EPA solicited comment on situations where conducting an REC would be infeasible. Several commenters highlighted technical issues that prevent the implementation of an REC on what they referred to as “low pressure” gas wells because of the lack of the necessary reservoir pressure to flow at rates appropriate for the transportation of solids and liquids from a hydraulically fractured gas well completion against additional back-pressure which would be caused by the REC equipment. Based on our analysis of the public comments received, we determined that there are certain wells where an REC is infeasible because of the characteristics of the reservoir and the well depth that will not allow the flowback to overcome the gathering system pressure due to the additional back pressure imposed by the REC surface equipment. On August 16, 2012, the EPA published the final NSPS (see 77 FR 49490). Based on comments received in response to our solicitation at proposal, we provided at § 60.5375(f) of the 2012 final NSPS that “low pressure gas wells” (
Following publication of the 2012 final NSPS, a group of petitioners, led by the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), representing independent oil and natural gas owners and operators, submitted a joint petition for administrative reconsideration of the 2012 NSPS. The petitioners questioned the technical merits of the low pressure well definition and asserted that the public had not had an opportunity to comment on the definition because it was added in the final rule. The petitioners expressed concern that the formula adopted in the 2012 NSPS was based on “questionable assumptions” and “sparse data” and will “exclude from its scope many gas wells drilled in formations that historically have been recognized as `low pressure.'” In the view of the petitioners, “the 2012 definition has the potential to directly affect many smaller producers, who are less likely to be able to bear the costs of implementing costly RECs.”
On March 24, 2014, the petitioners submitted to the EPA a suggested alternative definition
On July 17, 2014, the EPA proposed clarifying amendments to the gas well completion provisions of the NSPS. In the July proposal, we expressed concern that the IPAA alternative definition is too simplistic and may not adequately account for the parameters that must be considered when determining whether an REC would be feasible for a given hydraulically fractured gas well. We expressed disagreement with the petitioners' assertion that the EPA definition is too complicated and that it would pose difficulty or hardship for smaller operators. However, we agreed with the petitioners that the public should have been provided an opportunity to comment on the 2012 definition of “low pressure gas well,” and we re-proposed the 2012 definition for notice and comment in the July 17, 2014, proposal. In addition, we solicited comment on the alternative definition suggested by the petitioners.
On August 18, 2014, prior to the close of the public comment period for the July 17, 2014, proposal, the IPAA, on behalf of the independent oil and natural gas owner and operator petitioners, submitted a comment to the EPA via the email address to the Air and Radiation Docket provided in the proposed rule. This timely submitted comment addressed the following: (1) Clarification that the petitioners' primary concern is that the EPA's definition would require REC to be performed on marginally cost-effective wells, and not that the calculation required by the EPA's definition would impose a hardship; (2) whether it was the petitioners' burden to justify the assumptions on which the EPA's definition was based; (3) accuracy of the Turner equation used in the development of the EPA's definition; (4) technical derivation of the petitioners' definition; and (5) relationship between low pressure gas wells and EPA's stages of flowback as proposed in the July 17, 2014, proposal.
The EPA published final amendments in the
In the December 31, 2014, final rule, the EPA had finalized amendments to
Following publication of the December 2014 final rule, we became aware that the terms “connected in parallel” and “installed in parallel” inadvertently include in storage vessels beyond those we attempted to address as described above. On February 19, 2015, the Gas Processors Association (GPA) submitted a petition for administrative reconsideration of the December 31, 2014, amendments. The GPA asserted that “it is quite common for multiple storage vessels to be situated next to each other and connected in parallel. Sometimes the storage vessels are operated in parallel, sometimes they are operated in series, and sometimes they are operated one-at-a-time with the connecting valves closed.” The GPA further asserted that this configuration has existed for decades and that “this language potentially has large impacts to how our members evaluate affected facility status.”
For the reasons discussed above, we are proposing to remove the regulatory provisions relative to storage vessels “installed in parallel” or “connected in parallel.” Instead, we solicit comment on other approaches to help avoid or discourage installation or operation of storage vessels that would unnecessarily reduce the potential to emit (PTE) of a single storage vessel.
In this action, the EPA is re-proposing for notice and comment the same definition of “low pressure gas well” that was finalized in 2012 and re-proposed in the July 17, 2014, proposal. In addition, as in the 2014 proposal, we are soliciting comment on the petitioners' alternative definition as presented above. We note that the EPA has now made the comment submitted by the IPAA on August 18, 2014, part of the record in the docket; therefore, it is not necessary for the IPAA to resubmit this comment in response to this proposed rule. However, the EPA welcomes the submittal of any additional comments by the petitioners and other interested parties. We are in the process of evaluating the IPAA comments. In this proposal, we solicit further comments on both the EPA proposed definition and on the IPAA alternative definition. We seek comment on (1) gas wells that are not considered “low pressure gas wells” based on the re-proposed EPA definition, but for which RECs are technically infeasible, and the specific well characteristics or other technical factors that make RECs technically infeasible; (2) gas wells that are considered “low pressure gas wells” based on the IPAA alternative definition, but for which RECs could be performed; and (3) specific well parameters or drilling techniques that should be considered in determining whether an REC would be technically feasible and how these factors could be used to define “low pressure gas well.”
With regard to storage vessels, in response to the GPA petition and in light of the considerations discussed above, we are proposing to amend the NSPS provisions relative to storage vessels “installed in parallel” or “connected in parallel.” Specifically, we are proposing to amend § 60.5365(e) to remove language related to storage vessels “installed in parallel” or “connected in parallel.” We are also proposing to amend the definitions of “returned to service” and “storage vessel” in § 60.5430 to remove language pertaining to storage vessels connected in parallel. We solicit comment on other approaches to help avoid or discourage installations or operations of storage vessels that would unnecessarily reduce the PTE of a single storage vessel.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0673. This action does not change the information collection requirements previously finalized and, as a result, does not impose any additional burden on industry.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action is a reconsideration of an existing rule and imposes no new impacts or costs.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This action is a reconsideration of an existing rule and imposes no new impacts or costs.
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401,
(e) Each storage vessel affected facility, which is a single storage vessel located in the oil and natural gas production segment, natural gas processing segment or natural gas transmission and storage segment, and has the potential for VOC emissions equal to or greater than 6 tpy as determined according to this section by October 15, 2013 for Group 1 storage vessels and by April 15, 2014, or 30 days after startup (whichever is later) for Group 2 storage vessels, except as provided in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section. The potential for VOC emissions must be calculated using a generally accepted model or calculation methodology, based on the maximum average daily throughput determined for a 30-day period of production prior to the applicable emission determination deadline specified in this section. The determination may take into account requirements under a legally and practically enforceable limit in an operating permit or other requirement established under a Federal, State, local or tribal authority.
(1) For each new, modified or reconstructed storage vessel receiving liquids pursuant to the standards for gas well affected facilities in § 60.5375, including wells subject to § 60.5375(f), you must determine the potential for VOC emissions within 30 days after startup of production.
(2) A storage vessel affected facility that subsequently has its potential for VOC emissions decrease to less than 6 tpy shall remain an affected facility under this subpart.
(3) For storage vessels not subject to a legally and practically enforceable limit in an operating permit or other requirement established under Federal, state, local or tribal authority, any vapor from the storage vessel that is recovered and routed to a process through a VRU designed and operated as specified in this section is not required to be included in the determination of VOC potential to emit for purposes of determining affected facility status, provided you comply with the requirements in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) You meet the cover requirements specified in § 60.5411(b).
(ii) You meet the closed vent system requirements specified in § 60.5411(c).
(iii) You maintain records that document compliance with paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(iv) In the event of removal of apparatus that recovers and routes vapor to a process, or operation that is inconsistent with the conditions specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section, you must determine the storage vessel's potential for VOC emissions according to this section within 30 days of such removal or operation.
(4) For each new, reconstructed, or modified storage vessel with startup, startup of production, or which is returned to service, affected facility status is determined as follows: If a storage vessel is reconnected to the original source of liquids or is used to replace any storage vessel affected facility, it is a storage vessel affected facility subject to the same requirements as before being removed from service, or applicable to the storage vessel affected facility being replaced immediately upon startup, startup of production, or return to service.
(1) Reconnected to the original source of liquids or has been used to replace any storage vessel affected facility; or
(2) Installed in any location covered by this subpart and introduced with crude oil, condensate, intermediate hydrocarbon liquids or produced water.
(1) Vessels that are skid-mounted or permanently attached to something that is mobile (such as trucks, railcars, barges or ships), and are intended to be located at a site for less than 180 consecutive days. If you do not keep or are not able to produce records, as required by § 60.5420(c)(5)(iv), showing that the vessel has been located at a site for less than 180 consecutive days, the vessel described herein is considered to be a storage vessel from the date the original vessel was first located at the site. This exclusion does not apply to a
(2) Process vessels such as surge control vessels, bottoms receivers or knockout vessels.
(3) Pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9 kilopascals and without emissions to the atmosphere.
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.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is a new collection for the Study on Nutrition and Wellness Quality in Childcare Settings (SNAQCS).
Written comments on this notice must be received on or before May 22, 2015.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions 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: Joseph F. Robare, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1004, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Joseph F. Robare at 703-305-2128 or via email to
All written comments will be open for public inspection at the office of the Food and Nutrition Service during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1004, Alexandria, Virginia 22302.
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 or copies of this information collection should be directed to Joseph F. Robare at 703-305-2128.
The study will take place in the context of heightened concern about adequate nutrition, diet quality and obesity in young children. These concerns and developing knowledge about nutritional requirements for appropriate childhood growth, as reflected in the updated 2010 DGA, led the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Food and Nutrition Board to recommend new meal requirements for the CACFP in its 2010 report
The study seeks to collect a broad range of data from a nationally representative sample which would include: (1) Sponsors, directors, food preparers and/or provider staff of childcare centers, family day care homes, and after-school programs that participate in the CACFP and those that do not participate in CACFP; and (2) children and parents of children receiving care from CACFP childcare centers, family day care homes, and after-school programs during 2015-2016. The sample is designed to provide required levels of statistical precision and data quality while minimizing data collection costs and respondent burden.
To address the study's three broad categories of research questions, the data collection activities to be undertaken subject to this notice will include the following surveys, forms, and interviews:
In addition, the study will include an Environmental Observation Form and a Meal Observation Form that will be completed by study staff and do not have any associated burden for study participants.
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
Notice of charter renewal.
Notice is hereby given that the Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee's (RVAAC) charter is being renewed.
Paul Beatty, Designated Federal Officer at (202) 272-0012 (Voice); (202) 272-0072 (TTY). Electronic mail address:
Pursuant to Section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), and in accordance with Title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 102-3.65(a), and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, the RVAAC charter is renewed. The Committee will provide advice to the Access Board on revising and updating our accessibility guidelines issued pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act for transportation vehicles that operate on fixed guideway systems (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public scoping meetings.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council will hold six scoping hearings in April 2015 for an Amendment to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB). The current focus of the amendment is to consider alternatives to reduce the capacities of the longfin squid and
The meetings will be held over several weeks between April 6, 2015 and April 21, 2015. See
See
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D. Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255. The Council's Web site,
There will be six scoping meetings (each lasting approximately 1-2 hours depending on attendance) with the following dates/times/locations:
1. Monday, April 6, 2015, 4 p.m., Superior Trawl, 55 State Street, Narragansett, RI 02882; telephone: (401) 782-1171.
2. Tuesday, April 7, 2015, 5 p.m., Montauk Library, 871 Montauk Highway, Montauk, NY 11954; telephone: (631) 668-3377.
3. Wednesday, April 8, 2015, 5 p.m., Fairfield Inn, 185 MacArthur Dr., New Bedford, MA 02740; telephone: (774) 634-2000.
4. Monday, April 13, 2015, 6 p.m., Congress Hall Hotel. 251 Beach Ave, Cape May, NJ 08204, telephone: (888) 944-1816.
5. Wednesday, April 15, 2015, 5 p.m., Ocean Place Resort. 1 Ocean Blvd., Long Branch, NJ, 07740; telephone: 732-571-4000.
6. Tuesday, April 21, 2015, 6 p.m., This April 21, 2015 meeting will be conducted via webinar accessible via the internet from the Council's Web site,
In the Council's 2015 Implementation Plan (available at
The Council will first gather information during the scoping period. This is the first and best opportunity for members of the public to raise concerns related to the scope of issues that will be considered in the Amendment. The Council needs your input both to identify management issues and develop effective alternatives. Your comments early in the amendment development process will help us address issues of public concern in a thorough and appropriate manner. Comment topics could include the scope of issues in the amendment, concerns and potential alternatives related to capacity in the squid fisheries, and the appropriate level of environmental analysis. If the Council decides to move forward with the Amendment, the Council will develop a range of management alternatives to be considered and prepare a draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and/or other appropriate environmental analyses. These analyses will consider the impacts of the management alternatives being considered, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Following a review of any comments on the draft analyses, the Council will then choose preferred management measures for submission with a Final EIS or Environmental Assessment to the Secretary of Commerce for publishing of a proposed and then final rule, both of which have additional comment periods. While the Council is conducting these scoping hearings, the Council will also accept general comments on the MSB fisheries. These general comments could inform Council decision making for upcoming annual specifications or other actions.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Design workshop for monitoring deep water snapper-grouper species in the South Atlantic.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) and Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) will host a workshop where fishermen and scientists will discuss approaches for monitoring the deep water stocks component of the South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper complex. See
The workshop will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Tuesday, April 7, 2015; 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, April 8, 2015; and 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m., Thursday, April 9, 2015.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; telephone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The goal of the Workshop is to identify optimal approaches and associated costs for surveying the South Atlantic deep-water species complex. Survey goals are expected to include providing abundance information and biological samples to support stock assessments of deep water species.
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that the Minnesota Zoological Gardens, 13000 Zoo Boulevard, Apple Valley, MN 55124, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on and enhancement of Hawaiian monk seals (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before April 22, 2015.
The application and related documents are available for review by
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Amy Sloan or Jennifer Skidmore, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The Minnesota Zoological Gardens (MZG) proposes to maintain up to eight non-releasable Hawaiian monk seals for research and enhancement purposes. This would include five female monk seals (currently being held at Sea World San Antonio) and any other captive or future non-releasable female monk seals taken under separate permit. The five seals currently at Sea World were collected from the wild for rehabilitation under an enhancement permit and deemed non-releasable due to an eye disease of unknown etiology; maintaining these seals in captivity would prevent the potential transmission of disease to the wild population. Proposed research on the captive seals includes the following: (1) Annually, blood samples and nasal swabs taken during routine health assessments will be analyzed for presence of West Nile virus, canine distemper virus, and phocine distemper virus in seals previously vaccinated; (2) various sedatives will be tested on the seals during routine health assessments to inform use in the wild population; and (3) seals may be used in research projects authorized under separate permits (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Groundfish Management Team (GMT) will hold a conference call that is open to the public. To attend the GMT teleconference, participants need to dial the following toll-free phone number: (888) 283-0166; Passcode: 4432591.
The GMT meeting will be held Tuesday, April 7, 2015, from 1 p.m. until business for the day is completed.
The meeting will be held via conference call with a listening station provided at the Pacific Council Office, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384; telephone: (503) 820-2280.
Ms. Kelly Ames, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2426.
The primary purpose of the GMT working meeting is to prepare for the April 2015 Council meeting. Specific agenda topics include NOAA's proposed revisions to National Standards 1, 3, and 7; a review of the latest West Coast Groundfish Observer Program data; inseason adjustments to groundfish fisheries including carryover for the shorebased individual fishing quota program; further consideration for flexible management of annual catch limit set-asides; and comments on a Council Operating Procedure for methodology reviews. The GMT may also address other assignments relating to groundfish management. No management actions will be decided by the GMT. Public comment will be accommodated if time allows, at the discretion of the GMT Chair. The GMT's task will be to develop recommendations for consideration by the Pacific Council at its April 10-16, 2015 meeting in Rohnert Park, CA.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2425 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On October 23, 2014, the Department of Commerce (Department) initiated a changed circumstance review (CCR) of the antidumping duty (AD) order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (PRC) in response to a request from Lanling Qingshui Vegetable Foods Co., Ltd. (Qingshui), a producer/exporter of fresh and peeled garlic from the People's Republic of China (PRC).
Hilary E. Sadler, Esq., AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4340.
On November 16, 1994, the Department published the AD order on fresh garlic from the PRC in the
Based on this information, the Department initiated this CCR on October 16, 2014, explaining that while there was sufficient evidence to initiate a changed circumstances review, the Department needed to request additional information for this review as provided by 19 CFR 351.221(b)(2).
The merchandise covered by this order is all grades of garlic, whether whole or separated into constituent cloves. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 0703.20.0000, 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, 0711.90.6500, 2005.90.9500, 2005.90.9700, 0703.20.0005, 2005.99.9700 and 0703.20.0015. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description is dispositive.
A complete description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
In accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act, we are conducting this changed circumstances review based upon the information contained in Qingshui's submissions.
Based on the evidence reviewed, we preliminarily determine that Qingshui is the successor-in-interest to Cangshan Qingshui. Specifically, we find that any changes that may have occurred after “Cangshan Qingshui Vegetable Foods Co., Ltd” became “Lanling Qingshui Vegetable Foods Co., Ltd.” did not constitute material changes to management, production facilities, supplier relationships, customer relationships, or ownership/legal
If the Department upholds these preliminary results in the final results, Qingshui will be assigned the cash deposit rate currently assigned to Cangshan Qingshui with respect to the subject merchandise (
Interested parties may submit written comments by no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review in the
Any interested party may request a hearing to the Assistant Secretary of Enforcement and Compliance using ACCESS within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), the Department intends to issue the final results of this changed circumstances review, not later than 270 days after the date on which the review is initiated.
The Department issues and publishes these results in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. This Exempted Fishing Permit would allow one commercial fishing vessel to fish outside of the limited access scallop days-at-sea program in support of research conducted by the National Fisheries Institute that is investigating scallop incidental mortality in the scallop dredge fishery. Additionally, the Exempted Fishing Permit would exempt participating vessels from the crew size restriction; mesh size restrictions; obstruction in gear restrictions; and possession limits and minimum size requirements for sampling purposes only.
Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed Exempted Fishing Permits.
Comments must be received on or before April 7, 2015.
You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Shannah Jaburek, Fisheries Management Specialist, 978-282-8456.
NOAA awarded the National Fisheries Institute (NFI) a grant through the 2014 Atlantic sea scallop research set-aside program in support of a project titled, “Determining Incidental Discard Mortality of Atlantic Sea Scallops,
The project would conduct dredging activities to assess the incidental mortality of scallops passing through the 4-inch (10.16-cm) rings of a 12-foot (4.57-meter) Turtle Deflector Dredge on sandy and hard (gravel) substrates. Dredging would be conducted over approximately 5 DAS during the proposed period of May 2015 through June 2015. All dredging would occur in open access scallop fishing areas off the coast of New Jersey. A total of 20 scallop tows would be conducted (10 tows per substrate). Each tow would be made at depths of 18 to 25 fathoms for a duration of 40 minutes. The scallop vessel would fish two dredges simultaneously. One dredge would use an experimental net bag cover and the other would fish with the industry standard 12-foot (4.57-meter) turtle excluder dredge. The experimental cover is constructed of 1
All scallops that filter through the 4-inch (10.16-cm) rings and into the mesh bag would be measured for shell height and assessed for damage to the shell in one of three categories: Not injured; sub-lethal (repairable); or lethal (non-repairable). After shell condition is assessed, shells would be spray painted with tow number in the corresponding spray paint color and placed in a whelk pot, which would be attached to the sea floor near the fishing grounds. Two additional DAS would be utilized, one each at 1 week and 2 weeks after initial survey, to assess mortality based on initial damage. The whelk pots would be removed from the ocean bottom after week-two sampling is complete. The weight of scallop catch retained in the 4-inch (10.16-cm) ring bags of both dredges would be estimated by the captain. Researchers would take shell measurements of a subsample of 50 scallops per tow per dredge to determine size selectivity within each dredge. All other bycatch in the experimental net bag would be sorted, the captain would estimate the weights, and researchers would measure a minimum of 25 lengths per individual species. No catch would be landed for sale.
If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council will hold a meeting of its Habitat and Environmental Protection (Habitat) Advisory Panel (AP) in N. Charleston, SC. The meeting is open to the public.
The meeting will be held from 9 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 7, 2015, and from 9 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. Wednesday, April 8, 2015.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405; telephone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The Habitat AP will work on updating existing and developing new Council Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Policy Statements and providing guidance on continued development of Fishery Ecosystem Plan II. The AP will receive presentations from Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Office of Renewable Energy Programs and BOEM Outer Continental Shelf/Geological and Geophysical Programs on mapping, characterization, impact analyses and planning efforts in the South Atlantic Region.
The AP will subsequently discuss redrafting the EFH Policy Statement on Energy Exploration, Development and Transportation. The AP will provide recommendations to the Council for consideration.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) is requesting a new generic information collection plan, titled, “Generic Information Collection Plan for Surveys Using the Consumer Credit Panel”.
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before May 22, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) is requesting approval for a new generic information collection plan titled, “Generic Information Collection Plan to Conduct Cognitive Research and Pilot Testing.”
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before May 22, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
Office of the Secretary, United States Air Force Academy Board of Visitors (USAFA BoV), Department of the Air Force, DoD.
Quarterly meeting notice; cancellation.
On Thursday, February 26, 2015 (38 FR 10462), the Department of Defense published in the
The next scheduled USAFA BoV meeting has not been established, but will be published in the
United States Marine Corps, DoD.
Notice to alter a system of records.
The U.S. Marine Corps proposes to alter the system of records, M05100-6, entitled “MCB Camp Lejeune Historic Drinking Water Notification Registry” in its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended.
This system is used to obtain and maintain contact information of people who may have been exposed to contaminated drinking water at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune or persons interested in the issue. Information is used to notify, update, or correspond with registrants.
Comments will be accepted on or before April 22, 2015. This proposed action will be effective the day following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Sally A. Hughes, Head, FOIA/PA Programs (ARSF), Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, 3000 Marine Corps Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-3000, telephone (703) 614-3685.
The U.S. Marine Corps' notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on December 16, 2014, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
MCB Camp Lejeune Historic Drinking Water Notification Registry (December 14, 2009, 74 FR 66111).
Delete entry and replace with “Marine Corps Installations East G6, Bldg. 24, McHugh Blvd., Camp Lejeune, NC 28542-0004.”
Delete entry and replace with “Active duty, Reserve, retired, and separated service members; military dependents, Federal government employees and civilian personnel who were stationed, lived, or were employed aboard Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, in 1987 or before; and individuals interested in the Camp Lejeune historic drinking water issue.”
Delete entry and replace with “Full name, current address, phone number, and email address.”
Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C. 5041, Headquarters, U.S. Marine
Delete entry and replace with “The purpose of this system is to obtain and maintain the contact information of people who may have been exposed to contaminated drinking water at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune or persons interested in the issue. Information is used to notify, update, or correspond with registrants.”
Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained in the system may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 522a(b)(8) to federal and state public health and environmental agencies in the performance of their official duties related to the protection and study of human health and the environment as affected by potential exposure to toxic contamination.
To the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for the purpose of providing medical care to former service members and retirees, to determine the eligibility for or entitlement to benefits, to coordinate cost sharing activities, and to facilitate collaborative research activities between the DoD and DVA.
To officials and employees of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Diseases Registry (ATSDR) to facilitate ATSDR research activities.
The DoD Blanket Routine Uses that appear at the beginning of the Marine Corps' systems of records notices may apply to this system.”
Delete entry and replace with “Records may be retrieved by name, current address, phone number, or email address.”
Delete entry and replace with “The database servers are located in a secure area at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. Access to records is limited to person(s) responsible for servicing the record in the performance of their official duties and who are properly screened and cleared for need-to-know. System software uses Primary Key Infrastructure (PKI)/Common Access Card (CAC) authentication to lock out unauthorized access.”
Delete entry and replace with “Destroy 50 years after Camp Lejeune is deleted from the National Priorities List.”
Delete entry and replace with “Marine Corps Installations East G6, Bldg. 24, McHugh Blvd., Camp Lejeune, NC 28542-0004.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to Marine Corps Installations Command, 3000 Marine Corps Pentagon, Room 2D153A, Washington, DC 20350-3000.
Written requests should contain full name and must be signed and notarized.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to Marine Corps Installations Command, 3000 Marine Corps Pentagon, Room 2D153A, Washington, DC 20350-3000.
Written requests should contain full name and must be signed and notarized.”
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 May 22, 2015.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
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.
Institutions are required to report student Pell Grant payment information to ED electronically. Electronic reporting is conducted through the Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) system. The COD system is used by institutions to request, report and reconcile grant funds received from the Pell Grant program.
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of Application.
Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. (Applicant or MSCG) has applied to renew its authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before April 22, 2015.
Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed to: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On June 9, 2010, DOE issued Order No. EA-185-C to the applicant, which authorized MSCG to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities. That authority expires on August 21, 2015. On March 2, 2015, the Applicant filed an application with DOE for renewal of the export authority contained in Order No. EA-185-C for an additional five-year term.
In its application, the Applicant states that it does not own or operate any electric generation or transmission facilities, and it does not have a franchised service area. The electric energy that the Applicant proposes to export to Canada would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.
Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five copies of such comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be sent to the address provided above on or before the date listed above.
Comments and other filings concerning the MSCG's application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-185-D. An additional copy is to be provided directly to both Edward J. Zabrocki, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, 2000 Westchester Ave., 1st Floor, Purchase, NY 10577 and Daniel E. Frank, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, 700 Sixth Street NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20001.
A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at
1. By letter filed March 10, 2015, New Hampshire Hydro Associates informed the Commission that the exemption from licensing for the HDI Mascoma Dam Project, FERC No. 9403, originally issued September 21, 1988,
2. Rivermill Hydroelectric, Inc. is now the exemptee of the HDI Mascoma Dam Project, FERC No. 9403. All correspondence should be forwarded to: Michael Hansen, Rivermill Hydroelectric, Inc., 44 Deer Ridge Drive, Barrington, NH 03825.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and/or motions is: 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, protests, and motions to intervene using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to investigate and determine if the project would affect the interests of interstate or foreign commerce. The Commission also determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a navigable waterway; (2) would occupy public lands or reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or (4) would be located on a non-navigable stream over which Congress has Commerce Clause jurisdiction and would be constructed or enlarged after 1935.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
p.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l. The proposed Arkabutla Lake Project would utilize the following existing Corps' Arkabutla Lake Dam facilities: (1) A 10,000-foot-long, 65-foot-high earth fill embankment dam; (2) a reservoir; and (3) outlet works consisting of a concrete intake tower, three gated inlets that combine to direct flow through a 355-foot-long, 16.0-foot by 18.25-foot ovoid concrete outlet conduit, and a stilling basin.
The proposed Arkabutla Lake Project would consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 325-foot-long, 15.5-foot-diameter steel liner installed within the existing outlet conduit; (2) a 50-foot-long, varying width steel-lined, concrete bifurcation chamber containing two hydraulically-operated gates used to control the amount of flow diverted from the existing stilling basin to the powerhouse; (3) a 272-foot-long, 12-foot-diameter steel penstock; (4) a 60-foot wide, 50-foot-long, 83-foot-high steel and reinforced-concrete forebay housing trashracks and a fish bypass gate; (5) an 80-foot-long, 46-foot-wide concrete powerhouse containing two vertical Kaplan turbine-generator units having a combined installed capacity of 5.1 megawatts; (6) a 200-foot long, 85-foot-wide tailrace; (7) a 1,574-foot-long, 4.16-kilovolt (kV) buried cable; (8) a substation; and (9) a 2,712-foot-long, 12.5-kV overhead transmission line extending from the substation to a utility-owned distribution line. The average annual generation would be 19,000 megawatt-hours.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Register online at
All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS”; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
n. Procedural Schedule:
The application will be processed according to the following revised hydro licensing schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
o. Public notice of the filing of the initial development application, which has already been given, established the due date for filing competing applications or notices of intent. Under the Commission's regulations, any competing development application must be filed in response to and in compliance with public notice of the initial development application. No competing applications or notices of intent may be filed in response to this notice.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that on March 18, 2015 members of its staff will attend the California Independent System Operator's (CAISO) Market Performance and Planning Forum. The agenda and other documents for the meeting are available on CAISO's Web site,
Sponsored by CAISO, the meeting is open to all market participants and staff's attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts. The meeting may discuss matters at issue in the above captioned dockets.
For further information, contact Saeed Farrokhpay at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Sunbury Pipeline Project (Project) involving the construction and operation of approximately 34.5 miles of 20-inch diameter pipeline and related facilities by UGI Sunbury, LLC (Sunbury) in Snyder, Union, Northumberland, Montour, and Lycoming Counties, Pennsylvania. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on April 17, 2015.
You may submit comments in written form or verbally. Further details on how to submit written comments are in the Public Participation section of this notice. If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on December 30, 2014, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. PF15-9-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding. In lieu of or in addition to sending written comments, the Commission invites you to attend the public scoping meeting scheduled as follows:
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
Sunbury plans to construct, own, and operate a new natural gas pipeline extending from Lycoming County, Pennsylvania to a gas-fired power plant,
The Sunbury Pipeline Project would consist of the following facilities:
• One new 34.5-mile, 20-inch-diameter pipeline; and
• associated aboveground facilities consisting of two new mainline vales, four meter stations, and two launcher and receivers.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Construction of the planned pipeline would disturb about 488 acres of land. Land disturbance for the planned above ground facilities would encompass an area of 3.7 acres, which would be reduced to 2.1 acres for operation of these facilities. Following construction, Sunbury would maintain about 209 acres for permanent operation of the project's pipeline facilities, and 2.1 acres for the above ground facilities. The remaining 279 acres would be used for temporary construction workspace and be restored and to former uses.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• land use;
• water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• cultural resources;
• vegetation and wildlife, including migratory birds;
• air quality and noise;
• endangered and threatened species;
• socioeconomics;
• public safety; and
• cumulative impacts.
We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
Although no formal application has been filed, we have already initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we participated in public Open House meetings sponsored by Sunbury in the project area on February 24th and February 25th to explain the environmental review process to interested stakeholders. Also, we have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office, and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before April 17, 2015.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (PF15-9-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address:
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned project.
If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).
Once Sunbury files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives a formal application for the project.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of Filing.
On March 2, 2015, NTE Ohio, LLC, as owner and operator of a new base load electric powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to § 201(d) of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended, and DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61. FUA and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the
Copies of coal capability self-certification filings are available for public inspection, upon request, in the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code OE-20, Room 8G-024, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Christopher Lawrence at (202) 586-5260.
Title II of FUA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301
The following owner of a proposed new base load electric powerplant has filed a self-certification of coal-capability with DOE pursuant to FUA section 201(d) and in accordance with DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61:
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission.
All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at
Please include the project number (P-11243-075) on any comments, motions, or recommendations filed.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l. The proposed Grenada Lake Project would utilize the following existing Corps' Grenada Lake Dam facilities: (1) A 13,900-foot-long, 80-foot-high earth fill embankment dam; (2) a reservoir; and (3) outlet works consisting of a concrete intake tower, three gated inlets that combine to direct flow through a 377.5-foot-long, 17-foot-diameter concrete outlet conduit, and a stilling basin.
The proposed Grenada Lake Project would consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 327.5-foot-long, 16-foot-diameter steel liner installed within the existing outlet conduit; (2) a 50-foot-long, variable width steel-lined, concrete bifurcation chamber containing two hydraulically-operated gates used to control the amount of flow diverted from the existing stilling basin to the powerhouse; (3) a 260-foot-long, 14-foot-diameter steel penstock; (4) a 78-foot wide, 50-foot-long, 86-foot-high steel and reinforced concrete forebay housing trashracks and a fish bypass outlet gate; (5) a 120-foot-long, 60-foot-wide concrete powerhouse containing two vertical Kaplan turbine-generator units having a combined installed capacity of 9.0 megawatts; (6) a 150-foot-long, 70-foot-wide tailrace; (7) a 670-foot-long, 4.16-kilovolt (kV) buried cable; (8) a substation; and (9) a 1,980-foot-long, 12.5-kV overhead transmission line extending from the substation to a utility-owned distribution line. The average annual generation would be 31,000 megawatt-hours.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Register online at
All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS”; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
n. Procedural Schedule:
The application will be processed according to the following revised hydro licensing schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
o. Public notice of the filing of the initial development application, which has already been given, established the due date for filing competing applications or notices of intent. Under the Commission's regulations, any competing development application must be filed in response to and in compliance with public notice of the initial development application. No competing applications or notices of intent may be filed in response to this notice.
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of Filing.
On March 2, 2015, NTE Carolinas, LLC, as owner and operator of a new base load electric powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to § 201(d) of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended, and DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61. FUA and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the
Copies of coal capability self-certification filings are available for public inspection, upon request, in the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code OE-20, Room
Christopher Lawrence at (202) 586-5260.
Title II of FUA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301
The following owner of a proposed new base load electric powerplant has filed a self-certification of coal-capability with DOE pursuant to FUA section 201(d) and in accordance with DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61:
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Register online at
n.
The application will be processed according to the following revised hydro licensing schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
o. Public notice of the filing of the initial development application, which has already been given, established the due date for filing competing applications or notices of intent. Under the Commission's regulations, any competing development application must be filed in response to and in compliance with public notice of the initial development application. No competing applications or notices of intent may be filed in response to this notice.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene is: 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, protests, and motions to intervene using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to investigate and determine if the project would affect the interests of interstate or foreign commerce. The Commission also determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a navigable waterway; (2) would occupy public lands or reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or (4) would be located on a non-navigable stream over which Congress has Commerce Clause jurisdiction and would be constructed or enlarged after 1935.
l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTESTS”, and “MOTIONS TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Docket Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any Motion to Intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Register online at
n. Procedural Schedule:
The application will be processed according to the following revised hydro licensing schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
o. Public notice of the filing of the initial development application, which has already been given, established the due date for filing competing applications or notices of intent. Under the Commission's regulations, any competing development application must be filed in response to and in compliance with public notice of the initial development application. No competing applications or notices of intent may be filed in response to this notice.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Advisory Committee meeting.
Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gives notice of a meeting of the National Advisory Committee (NAC) and Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to the U.S. Representative to the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). The National and Governmental Advisory Committees advise the EPA Administrator in her capacity as the U.S. Representative to the CEC Council. The committees are authorized under Articles 17 and 18 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Public Law 103-182, and as directed by Executive Order 12915, entitled “Federal Implementation of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation.” The NAC is composed of 15 members
The purpose of the meeting is to provide advice on issues related to the CEC's draft Operational Plan and Budget for 2015-16, the CEC's draft Strategic Plan for 2015-2020, and to discuss additional trade and environment issues. The meeting will also include a public comment session. The agenda, meeting materials, and general information about the NAC and GAC will be available at
The National and Governmental Advisory Committees will hold an open meeting on Thursday, April 16, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Friday, April 17, 2014 from 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the U.S. EPA, Conference Room B-305, located in the William Jefferson Clinton North Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. Telephone: 202-564-2294. The meeting is open to the public, with limited seating on a first-come, first-served basis.
Oscar Carrillo, Designated Federal Officer,
Requests to make oral comments, or provide written comments to the committees, should be sent to Oscar Carrillo, Designated Federal Officer, at the contact information above. If you plan to attend, please register with Ms. Stephanie McCoy, by April 9th by calling 202-564-7297 or via email at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of meeting.
Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gives notice of a series of teleconference meetings of the National Environmental Education Advisory Council (NEEAC). The NEEAC was created by Congress to advise, consult with, and make recommendations to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on matters related to activities, functions and policies of EPA under the National Environmental Education Act (the Act). 20 U.S.C. 5508(b).The purpose of this teleconference(s) is to discuss specific topics of relevance for consideration by the council in order to provide advice and insights to the Agency on environmental education.
The National Environmental Education Advisory Council will hold a public teleconference on Friday, April 17, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. until 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
Javier Araujo, Designated Federal Officer,
Members of the public wishing to gain access to the teleconference, make brief oral comments, or provide a written statement to the NEEAC must contact Javier Araujo, Designated Federal Officer, at
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 April 22, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should
Submit your PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via fax at 202-395-5167 or via Internet at
Benish Shah, Office of Managing Director, (202) 418-7866.
In 1996, the Declaration of Conformity (DoC) procedure was established in a Report and Order, FCC 96-208,
(a) The Declaration of Conformity equipment authorization procedure, 47 CFR 2.1071, requires that a manufacturers or equipment supplier test a product to ensure compliance with technical standards that limit radio frequency emissions.
(b) Additionally, the manufacturer or supplier must also include a DoC (with the standards) in the literature furnished with the equipment, and the equipment manufacturer or supplier must also make this statement of conformity and supporting technical data available to the FCC, at the Commission's request.
(c) The DoC procedure represents a simplified filing and reporting procedure for authorizing equipment for marketing.
(d) Finally, testing and documentation of compliance are needed to control potential interference to radio communications. The data gathering are necessary for investigating complaints of harmful interference or for verifying the manufacturer's compliance with the Commission's rules.
Federal Communications Commission.
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 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 PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 22, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 17, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
1.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than April 7, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, March 26, 2015 6:30 p.m. to March 27, 2015, 4 p.m., Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852 which was published in the
The meeting notice is amended to change the date and start time to be held on March 27, 2015 at 7:30 a.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of Delisting.
The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21 to b-26, (Patient Safety Act) and the related Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule, 42 CFR part 3 (Patient Safety Rule), published in the
The directories for both listed and delisted PSOs are ongoing and reviewed weekly by AHRQ. The delisting was effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on January 5, 2015.
Both directories can be accessed electronically at the following HHS Web site:
Eileen Hogan, Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; Telephone (toll free): (866) 403-3697; Telephone (local): (301) 427-1111; TTY (toll free): (866) 438-7231; TTY (local): (301) 427-1130; Email:
The Patient Safety Act authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity are to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery.
HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when a PSO's listing expires. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of federally approved PSOs.
AHRQ has accepted a notification from PSO Services Group, PSO number P0028, to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO. Accordingly, PSO Services Group was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on January 5, 2015.
PSO Services Group has patient safety work product (PSWP) in its possession. The PSO will meet the requirements of section 3.108(c)(2)(i) of the Patient Safety Rule regarding notification to providers that have reported to the PSO. In addition, according to sections 3.108(c)(2)(ii) and 3.108(b)(3) of the Patient Safety Rule regarding disposition of PSWP, the PSO has 90 days from the effective date of delisting and revocation to complete the disposition of PSWP that is currently in the PSO's possession.
More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO Web site at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002;
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. “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 records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Requirements for drug establishment registration and drug listing are set forth in section 510 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360), section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
Under section 510 of the FD&C Act, FDA is authorized to establish a system for registration of producers of drugs and for listing of drugs in commercial distribution. To implement section 510 of the FD&C Act, FDA issued part 207. Under current § 207.20, manufacturers, repackers, and relabelers that engage in the manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing of human or veterinary drugs and biological products, including bulk drug substances and bulk drug substances for prescription compounding, and drug premixes as well as finished dosage forms, whether prescription or over-the-counter, are required to register their establishment. In addition, manufacturers, repackers, and relabelers are required to submit a listing of every drug or biological product in commercial distribution. Owners or operators of establishments that distribute under their own label or trade name a drug product manufactured by a registered establishment are not required either to register or list. However, distributors may elect to submit drug listing information in lieu of the registered establishment that manufactures the drug product. Foreign drug establishments must also comply with the establishment registration and product listing requirements if they import or offer for import their products into the United States.
Under current § 207.21, establishments, both domestic and foreign, must register with FDA within 5 days after beginning the manufacture of drugs or biologicals, or within 5 days after the submission of a drug application or biological license application. In addition, establishments must register annually. Changes in individual ownership, corporate or partnership structure, location, or drug handling activity must be submitted as amendments to registration under current § 207.26 within 5 days of such changes. Under § 207.20(b), private label distributors may request their own labeler code and elect to submit drug listing information to FDA. In such instances, at the time of submitting or updating drug listing information, private label distributors must certify to the registered establishment that manufactured, prepared, propagated, compounded, or processed (which includes, among other things, repackaging and relabeling) the listed drug that the drug listing submission was made. Establishments must, within 5 days of beginning the manufacture of drugs or biologicals, submit to FDA a listing for every drug or biological product in commercial distribution at that time. Private label distributors may elect to submit to FDA a listing of every drug product they place in commercial distribution. Registered establishments must submit to FDA drug product listing for those private label distributors who do not elect to submit listing information.
Under § 207.25, product listing information submitted to FDA by domestic and foreign manufacturers must, depending on the type of product being listed, include any new drug application number or biological establishment license number, copies of current labeling and a sampling of advertisements, a quantitative listing of the active ingredient for each drug or biological product not subject to an approved application or license, the NDC number, and any drug imprinting information.
In addition to the product listing information required, FDA may also require, under § 207.31, a copy of all advertisements and a quantitative listing of all ingredients for each listed drug or biological product not subject to an approved application or license; the basis for a determination, by the establishment, that a listed drug or biological product is not subject to marketing or licensing approval requirements; and a list of certain drugs or biological products containing a particular ingredient. FDA may also request, but not require, the submission of a qualitative listing of the inactive ingredients for all listed drugs or biological products, and a quantitative listing of the active ingredients for all listed drugs or biological products subject to an approved application or license.
Under § 207.30, establishments must update their product listing information every June and December or, at the discretion of the establishment, when any change occurs. These updates must include the following information: (1) A listing of all drug or biological products introduced for commercial distribution that have not been included in any previously submitted list; (2) all drug or biological products formerly listed for which commercial distribution has been discontinued; (3) all drug or biological products for which a notice of discontinuance was submitted and for which commercial distribution has been resumed; and (4) any material change in any information previously submitted. No update is required if no changes have occurred since the previously submitted list.
Historically, drug establishment registration and drug listing information have been submitted in paper form using Form FDA 2656 (Registration of Drug Establishment/Labeler Code Assignment), Form FDA 2657 (Drug Product Listing), and Form FDA 2658 (Registered Establishments' Report of Private Label Distributors) (collectively referred to as FDA Forms). Changes in the FD&C Act resulting from enactment of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-85) (FDAAA) require that drug establishment registration and drug listing information be submitted electronically unless a waiver is granted. Before the enactment of FDAAA, section 510(p) of the FD&C Act expressly provided for electronic submission of drug establishment registration information upon a finding that electronic receipt was feasible, and section 510(j) of the FD&C Act provided that drug listing information be submitted in the form and manner prescribed by FDA. Section 224 of FDAAA, which amends section 510(p) of the FD&C Act, now expressly, requires electronic drug listing in addition to drug establishment registration. In certain cases, if it is unreasonable to expect a person to submit registration and listing information electronically, FDA may grant a waiver from the electronic format requirement.
In the
• For registered foreign drug establishments, the name, address, and telephone number of its U.S. agent (§ 207.40(c));
• the name of each importer that is known to the establishment (the U.S. company or individual in the United States that is an owner, consignee, or recipient of the foreign establishment's drug that is imported into the United States. An importer does not include the consumer or patient who ultimately purchases, receives, or is administered the drug, unless the foreign establishment ships the drug directly to the consumer or the patient) (section 510(i)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act); and
• the name of each person who imports or offers for import (the name of each agent, broker, or other entity, other than a carrier, that the foreign drug establishment uses to facilitate the import of their drug into the United States) (section 510(i)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act).
FDA also recommends the voluntary submission of the following additional information, when applicable:
• To facilitate correspondence between foreign establishments and FDA, the email address for the U.S. agent, and the telephone number(s) and email address for the importer and person who imports or offers for import their drug;
• a site-specific Data Universal Numbering System number for each entity (
• the NDC product code for the source drug that is repacked or relabeled;
• distinctive characteristics of certain listed drugs,
• registrants may indicate that they view as confidential the registrant's business relationship with an establishment, or an inactive ingredient.
In addition to this collection of information, there is an additional burden for the following activities:
• preparing a standard operating procedure (SOP) for the electronic submission of drug establishment registration and drug listing information;
• creating the SPL file, including accessing and reviewing the technical specifications and instructional documents provided by FDA (accessible at
• reviewing and selecting appropriate terms and codes used to create the SPL file (accessible at
• obtaining the digital certificate used with FDA's electronic submission gateway and uploading the SPL file for submission (accessible at
• requests for waivers from the electronic submission process as described in the draft guidance.
When FDA published the 2009 guidance on submitting establishment registration and drug listing information in electronic format, the Agency also amended its burden estimates for OMB control number 0910-0045 to include the additional burden for the collection of information that had not been submitted using the FDA forms, and to create and upload the SPL file. The amended burden estimates included the one-time preparation of an SOP for creating and uploading the SPL file. Although most firms will already have prepared an SOP for the electronic submission of drug establishment registration and drug listing information, each year additional firms will need to create an SOP. As provided in Table 2 of this document, FDA estimates that approximately 1,000 firms will have to expend a one-time burden to prepare, review, and approve an SOP, and the Agency estimates that it will take 40 hours per recordkeeper to create 1,000 new SOPs for a total of 40,000 hours.
In Tables 1 and 2, the information collection requirements of the drug establishment registration and drug listing requirements have been grouped according to the information collection areas of the requirements.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Electronic Submission of Lot Distribution Reports; Guidance for Industry.” The guidance document provides information and recommendations pertaining to the electronic submission of lot distribution reports for applicants with approved biologics license applications (BLAs). FDA recently published in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002 or Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-7800. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Lori J. Churchyard, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911; or Jared Lantzy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 1116, Silver Spring, MD 20993, email:
FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Electronic Submission of Lot Distribution Reports; Guidance for Industry.” The guidance provides information and recommendations pertaining to the electronic submission of lot distribution reports. The guidance provides information on how to electronically submit lot distribution reports for biological products under approved BLAs for which CBER or CDER has regulatory responsibility. The guidance does not apply to any other biological product.
FDA published in the
In the
The guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents FDA's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR 600.81 and 600.90 have been approved under 0910-0308.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
This is notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404, that the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant to ProVivoX, Inc., of an exclusive evaluation option license to practice the inventions embodied in the following US Patent, US Patent Application, and International Patent Application (and all foreign counterparts): US Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 61/144,501, filed 14 January 2009, entitled: “Ratio-based Biomarker of Survival Utilizing PTEN and Phospho-AKT” [HHS Reference No. E-025-2009/0-US-01]; International Application No. PCT/US2010/020944, filed on 13 January 2010, entitled: “Ratio-based Biomarkers and Methods of Use Thereof” [HHS Reference No. E-025-2009/0-PCT-02]; US Patent Application Serial No. 13/144,474, filed 13 July 2011 [HHS Reference No. E-025-2009/0-US-02]; and Canadian Patent Application No. 2,749,601, filed on 13 January 2010 [HHS Reference No. E-025-2009/0-CA-05]. The patent rights in this invention have been assigned to the Government of the United States of America.
The prospective exclusive evaluation option license territory may be United States and Canada, and the field of use may be limited to:
a. “Exclusive use of the Licensed Patent Rights to develop an immunohistochemistry (IHC)- or tissue microarray-based test kit for use with human tissue samples and approved in the United States and Canada as a Class III medical device, such test kit to be distributed in commerce for the for the purpose of predicting survival, response to therapy, or cancer recurrence in breast cancer patients.”
b. “Non-exclusive use of the Licensed Patent Rights to develop an immunohistochemistry (IHC)- or tissue microarray-based test kit for use with human tissue samples and for which the United States FDA issues an order, in the form of a letter, which finds Licensee's kit to be a medical device substantially equivalent to one or more similar legally marketed devices, and states that the Licensee's device can be marketed in the U.S. (
Upon the expiration or termination of the exclusive evaluation option license, ProVivoX, Inc., will have the exclusive right to execute an exclusive commercialization license which will supersede and replace the exclusive evaluation option license with no greater field of use and territory than granted in the exclusive evaluation option license.
Only written comments or applications for a license (or both) which are received by the NIH Office of Technology Transfer on or before April 7, 2015 will be considered.
Requests for copies of the patent application, inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated exclusive evaluation option license should be directed to: Patrick McCue, Ph.D., Licensing and Patenting Manager, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, MD 20852-3804; Telephone: (301) 435-5560; Facsimile: (301) 402-0220; Email:
The technology describes a method of identifying cancer patients that may benefit from mTOR analog-based chemotherapy or agents directed against the AKT pathway.
The prospective exclusive evaluation license is being considered under the small business initiative launched on 1 October 2011, and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective exclusive evaluation option license, and a subsequent exclusive commercialization license, may be granted unless the NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice.
Complete applications for a license in the field of use filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive evaluation option license. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the FR in Volume 79 on December 31, 2014 on page 78876 and allowed 60-days for public comment. One public comment was received that was a personal opinion regarding conducting research about the Brazil blood donation system. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment. The National Institutes of Health may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Direct Comments To Omb: Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs,
Comments Due Date: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of the date of this publication.
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments or request more information on the proposed project contact: Simone Glynn, MD, Project Officer/ICD Contact, Two Rockledge
The primary study aims are to continue monitoring HIV molecular variants and risk behaviors in blood donors in Brazil, and to evaluate HIV subtype and drug resistance profiles among HIV-positive donors according to HIV infection status (recent versus long-standing infection), year of donation, and site of collection. Additional study objectives include determining trends in HIV molecular variants and risk factors associated with HIV infection by combining data collected in the previous REDS-II project with that which will be obtained in the planned research activities.
Given the initiation of NAT testing for HIV (and HCV) in Brazil, it will be important to continue to collect molecular surveillance and risk factor data on HIV infections. especially now that infections that might not have been identified by serology testing alone could be recognized through the use of NAT. NAT-only infections represent very recently acquired infections. The NAT assay will continue to be used at the four REDS-III blood centers in Brazil during the research activities. In addition, in order to distinguish between recent seroconversion and long-standing infection, samples from all HIV antibody dual reactive donations and/or NAT positive donations will continue to be tested by the Recent Infection Testing Algorithm (RITA) which is based on use of a sensitive/less-sensitive enzyme immunoassay (“detuned” Enzyme Immunoassay). RITA testing will continue to be performed by the Blood Systems Research Institute, San Francisco, California, USA, which is the REDS-III Central Laboratory.
Since Dec 2012, the study has enrolled 223 HIV-positive donors (51 at Hemorio-Rio de Janeiro, 38 at Hemominas-Minas Gerais, 67 at Hemope-Pernambuco and 67 at Fundacao Pro-Sangue-Sao Paulo) with a target enrollment of 500 by 2017. It is important to continue the study and enroll more HIV infected donors to inform trend analyses. Preliminary evaluation of data has shown that respondent donors are completing the entire questionnaire including information about their risk behaviors. According to the Brazilian guidelines, blood donors are requested to return to the blood bank for HIV confirmatory testing and HIV counseling. Donors are invited to participate in the study through administration of informed consent when they return for HIV counseling. Once informed consent has been administered and enrollment has occurred, participants are asked to complete a confidential self-administered risk factor questionnaire by computer. In addition, a small blood sample is collected from each HIV-positive participant to be used for the genotyping and drug resistance testing. The results of the drug resistance testing are communicated back to the HIV-positive participants during an in-person counseling session at the blood center. For those individuals who do not return for confirmatory testing, the samples will be anonymized and sent to the REDS-III Central Laboratory to perform the recent infection testing algorithm (RITA).
This research effort will allow for an evaluation of trends in the trafficking of non-B HIV subtypes and rates of transmission of drug resistant viral strains in low risk blood donors. These data could also be compared with data from similar studies in higher risk populations. Monitoring drug resistance strains is extremely important in a country that provides free anti-retroviral therapy for HIV infected individuals, many of whom have low level education and modest resources, thus making compliance with drug regimens and hence the risk of drug resistant HIV a serious problem. It is worth noting that Brazil is the first developing country to implement early treatment initiation for all individuals living with HIV/AIDS irrespective of CD4 count; this new universal treatment policy went into effect in 2014.
Findings from this study will be compared to trends in prevalence, incidence, and molecular variants from studies of the general population and high risk populations in Brazil, thus allowing for broader and more effective monitoring of the HIV epidemic in Brazil, as well as assessment of the impact of donor selection criteria on these parameters. We also propose to continue to examine trends in risk behaviors by comparing the data previously collected to the data we plan to collect for the next three year period. This will allow for extended trend analyses over a 10-year period that complements similar monitoring of HIV prevalence, incidence, transfusion risk and molecular variants in the USA and other funded international REDS-III sites in South Africa and China, thus allowing direct comparisons of these parameters on a global level.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 40.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of delisting.
The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21 to b-26, (Patient Safety Act) and the related Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule, 42 CFR part 3 (Patient Safety Rule), published in the
The directories for both listed and delisted PSOs are ongoing and reviewed weekly by AHRQ. The delisting was effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on January 10, 2015.
Both directories can be accessed electronically at the following HHS Web site:
Eileen Hogan, Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; Telephone (toll free): (866) 403-3697; Telephone (local): (301) 427-1111; TTY (toll free): (866) 438-7231; TTY (local): (301) 427-1130; Email:
The Patient Safety Act authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity are to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery.
HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when the PSO's listing expires. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of federally approved PSOs. Premerus PSO, LLC, PSO number P0120, a component entity of Premerus, Inc., chose to let its listing expire by not seeking continued listing. Accordingly, Premerus PSO, LLC was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on January 10, 2015.
More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO Web site at
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
This is notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404, that the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an start-up exclusive commercial license to practice the inventions embodied in U.S. Patent Application No. 62/034,995 entitled “Human Monoclonal Antibodies Specific for 5T4 and Methods of Their Use” filed August 8, 20014 [HHS Ref. E-158-2014/0-US-01] and all related continuing and foreign patents/patent applications for the technology family to Concortis, Inc. The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the Government of the United States of America. The prospective start-up exclusive commercial license territory may be worldwide and the field of use may be limited to the development of 5T4 antibody drug conjugate therapeutics for the treatment of human cancers using Concortis' proprietary conjugation technologies.
Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the NIH Office of Technology Transfer on or before April 7, 2015 will be considered.
Requests for copies of the patent applications, inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated exclusive evaluation option license should be directed to: Whitney Hastings, Ph.D., Senior Licensing and Patenting Manager, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, MD 20852-3804; Telephone: (301) 451-7337; Facsimile: (301) 402-0220; Email:
5T4 is an antigen expressed in a number of
The prospective start-up exclusive commercial license is being considered under the small business initiative launched on October 1, 2011 and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective start-up exclusive commercial license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.
Any additional, properly filed, and complete applications for a license in the field of use filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive commercial license. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
In 2014, the Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ) funded the GDTA contract to provide training and technical assistance to all grantees receiving funding from the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS), and some grantees receiving funding from the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) that fall under the GDTA contract. This currently only includes discretionary grants but is expected to include block grants in future years. Training and technical assistance from the GDTA contract will focus on helping grantees use their Government and Performance Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) data for performance management and monitoring, and services improvement. The information being collected in this needs assessment will inform CBHSQ regarding the types of activities SAMHSA's grants use their funding for and what types of training activities they would like to receive in the future.
Description of Forms: Forms will include two questions. The first question asks about the services provided under the grant. Answer options include activities such as behavioral health care services, screening, prevention activities, and services to specific populations. The second question asks respondents to identify topics for training and technical assistance they would like to receive from a pre-populated list. Answer options include items such as data collection, data entry, and using data in creative ways. Both questions have an option for respondents to write-in an answer that is not included in the list.
Description of Respondents: The respondent universe for this data collection effort is one Project Director from each SAMHSA-funded grants being served by the GDTA contract. This currently only includes discretionary grants but is expected to include block grants in future years. There are currently 2,670 SAMHSA-funded discretionary grants served by the GDTA contract, therefore this is the number of respondents expected for this data collection effort.
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by April 22, 2015 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
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:
Comments on this notice must be received by May 22, 2015.
Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
Background on the Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture (Medical Office SOPS). In 1999, the Institute of Medicine called for health care organizations to develop a “culture of safety” such that their workforce and processes focus on improving the reliability and safety of care for patients (IOM, 1999;
The survey is designed to enable medical offices to assess provider and staff opinions about patient safety issues, medical error, and error reporting. The survey includes 38 items that measure 10 composites of patient safety culture. In addition to the composite items, 14 items measure how often medical offices have problems exchanging information with other settings and other patient safety and quality issues. AHRQ made the survey publicly available along with a Survey User's Guide and other toolkit materials in December 2008 on the AHRQ Web site (located at
The Medical Office SOPS Comparative Database consists of data from the AHRQ Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture. Medical offices in the U.S. are asked to voluntarily submit data from the survey to AHRQ, through its contractor Westat. The Medical Office SOPS Database (OMB NO. 0935-0196, last approved on June 12, 2012) was developed by AHRQ in 2011 in response to requests from medical offices interested in knowing how their patient safety culture survey results compare to those of other medical offices in their efforts to improve patient safety.
Rationale for the information collection. The Medical Office SOPS and the Comparative Database support AHRQ's goals of promoting improvements in the quality and safety of health care in medical office settings. The survey, toolkit materials, and comparative database results are all made publicly available on AHRQ's Web site. Technical assistance is provided by AHRQ through its contractor at no charge to medical offices, to facilitate the use of these materials for medical office patient safety and quality improvement.
The goal of this project is to renew the Medical Office SOPS Comparative Database. This Database will:
(1) Allow medical offices to compare their patient safety culture survey results with those of other medical offices,
(2) Provide data to medical offices to facilitate internal assessment and learning in the patient safety improvement process, and
(3) Provide supplemental information to help medical offices identify their strengths and areas with potential for improvement in patient safety culture.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor Westat, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research 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; quality measurement and improvement; and database development. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1), (2), and (8).
To achieve the goal of this project the following activities and data collections will be implemented:
(1) Eligibility and Registration Form—The medical office point-of-contact (POC) completes a number of data submission steps and forms, beginning with the completion of an online eligibility and registration form. The purpose of this form is to determine the eligibility status and initiate the registration process for medical offices seeking to voluntarily submit their Medical Office SOPS data to the Medical Office SOPS Comparative Database.
(2) Data Use Agreement—The purpose of the data use agreement, completed by the medical office POC, is to state how data submitted by medical offices will be used and provides confidentiality assurances.
(3) Medical Office Site Information Form—The purpose of the site information form is to obtain basic information about the characteristics of the medical offices submitting their Medical Office SOPS data to the Medical Office SOPS Comparative Database (
(4) Data Files Submission—The number of submissions to the database is likely to vary each year because medical offices do not administer the survey and submit data every year. Data submission is typically handled by one POC who is either an office manager, nurse manager, or a survey vendor who contracts with a medical office to collect their data. POCs submit data on behalf of 10 medical offices, on average, because many medical offices are part of a health system that includes many medical office sites, or the POC is a vendor that is submitting data for multiple medical offices. After registering, if registrants are deemed eligible to submit data, an automated email is sent to authenticate the account and update the user password. Next the POC enters medical office information and uploads the survey questionnaire and submits a data use agreement. POCs then upload their data file(s), using the medical office data file specifications, to ensure that users submit standardized and consistent data in the way variables are named, coded, and formatted.
Survey data from the AHRQ Medical Office SOPS are used to produce three
Medical offices are asked to voluntarily submit their Medical Office SOPS survey data to the Comparative Database. The data are then cleaned and aggregated and used to produce a Comparative Database Report that displays averages, standard deviations, and percentile scores on the survey's 38 items that measure 10 composites of patient safety culture, and 14 items measuring how often medical offices have problems exchanging information with other settings and other patient safety and quality issues. The report also displays these results by medical office characteristics (size of office, specialty, geographic region, etc.) and respondent characteristics (staff position).
Data submitted by medical offices are used to give each medical office its own customized survey feedback report that presents the medical office's results compared to the latest comparative database results.
Medical offices use the Medical Office SOPS, Comparative Database Reports and Individual Medical Office Survey Feedback Reports for a number of purposes, to
• Raise staff awareness about patient safety.
• Diagnose and assess the current status of patient safety culture in their medical office.
• Identify strengths and areas for improvement in patient safety culture.
• Evaluate the cultural impact of patient safety initiatives and interventions.
• Compare patient safety culture survey results with other medical offices in their efforts to improve patient safety and health care quality.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in the database. An estimated 150 POCs, each representing an average of 10 individual medical offices each, will complete the database submission steps and forms annually. Completing the registration form will take about 3 minutes. The Medical Office Information Form is completed by all POCs for each of their medical offices (150 × 10 = 1,500 forms in total) and is estimated to take 5 minutes to complete. Each POC will complete a data use agreement which takes 3 minutes to complete and submitting the data will take an hour on average. The total burden is estimated to be 291 hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden based on the respondents' time to submit their data. The cost burden is estimated to be $13,968 annually.
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 Office of Management and Budget requires OCSE to periodically report performance measurements demonstrating how the use of information in the NDNH supports OCSE's strategic mission, goals, and objectives. OCSE will provide the annual SNAP performance outcomes to the Office of Management and Budget.
The information collection activities for the SNAP reports are authorized by: (1) Subsection 453 (j)(10) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 653(j)(10)), which allows the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to disclose information maintained in the NDNH to state agencies administering SNAP under the Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended by the Agriculture Act of 2014; (2) the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (5 U.S.C. 552a), which sets for the terms and conditions of a computer matching program; and (3) the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-352), which requires agencies to report program performance outcomes to the Office of Management and Budget and for the reports to be available to the public.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Solicits nominations for new members of USPSTF.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) invites nominations of individuals qualified to serve as members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).
All nominations submitted in writing or electronically will be considered for appointment to the USPSTF. Nominations must be received by May 15th of a given year to be considered for appointment to begin in January of the following year.
Nominations and applications are kept on file at the Center for Evidence and Practice Improvement, AHRQ, and are available for review during business hours. AHRQ does not reply to individual nominations, but considers all nominations in selecting members. Information regarded as private and personal, such as a nominee's social security number, home and email addresses, home telephone and fax numbers, or names of family members will not be disclosed to the public (in accord with the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6); 45 CFR 5.67).
Nominations may be submitted in writing or electronically, but should include:
1. The applicant's current curriculum vitae and contact information, including mailing address, email address, and telephone number, and
2. A letter explaining how this individual meets the qualification requirements and how he/she would contribute to the USPSTF. The letter should also attest to the nominee's
AHRQ will later ask persons under serious consideration for USPSTF membership to provide detailed information that will permit evaluation of possible significant conflicts of interest. Such information will concern matters such as financial holdings, consultancies, and research grants or contracts.
To obtain a diversity of perspectives, AHRQ particularly encourages nominations of women, members of minority populations, and persons with disabilities. Interested individuals can self-nominate. Organizations and individuals may nominate one or more persons qualified for membership on the USPSTF at any time. Individuals nominated prior to May 15, 2014, who continue to have interest in serving on the USPSTF, should be re-nominated.
To qualify for the USPSTF and support its mission, an applicant or nominee should, at a minimum, demonstrate knowledge, expertise and national leadership in the following areas:
1. The critical evaluation of research published in peer reviewed literature and in the methods of evidence review;
2. Clinical prevention, health promotion and primary health care; and
3. Implementation of evidence-based recommendations in clinical practice including at the clinician-patient level, practice level, and health system level.
Additionally, the Task Force benefits from members with expertise in the following areas:
Public health
Health equity and the reduction of health disparities
Application of science to health policy
Behavioral medicine
Communication of scientific findings to multiple audiences including health care professionals, policy makers and the general public.
Candidates with experience and skills in any of these areas should highlight them in their nomination materials.
Applicants must have no substantial conflicts of interest, whether financial, professional, or intellectual, that would impair the scientific integrity of the work of the USPSTF and must be willing to complete regular conflict of interest disclosures.
Applicants must have the ability to work collaboratively with a team of diverse professionals who support the mission of the USPSTF. Applicants must have adequate time to contribute substantively to the work products of the USPSTF.
Submit your responses either in writing or electronically to: Lydia Hill, ATTN: USPSTF Nominations, Center for Evidence and Practice Improvement, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, Maryland 20850,
Nominated individuals will be selected for the USPSTF on the basis of their qualifications (in particular, those that address the required qualifications, as outlined) and the current expertise needs of the USPSTF. It is anticipated that new members will be invited to serve on the USPSTF beginning in January, 2016. All nominated individuals will be considered; however, strongest consideration will be given to individuals with demonstrated training and expertise in the areas of Family Medicine, Internal Medicine, Nursing and Preventive Medicine. AHRQ will retain and may consider nominations received this year and not selected during this cycle for future vacancies.
Some USPSTF members without primary health care clinical experience may be selected based on their expertise in methodological issues such as meta-analysis, analytic modeling or clinical epidemiology. For individuals with clinical expertise in primary health care, additional qualifications in methodology would enhance their candidacy.
Lydia Hill at
Under Title IX of the Public Health Service Act, AHRQ is charged with enhancing the quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness of health care services and access to such services 42 U.S.C. 299(b). AHRQ accomplishes these goals through scientific research and promotion of improvements in clinical practice, including clinical prevention of diseases and other health conditions. See 42 U.S.C. 299(b).
The USPSTF, an independent body of experts in prevention and evidence- based medicine, works to improve the health of all Americans by making evidence-based recommendations about the effectiveness of clinical preventive services and health promotion. The recommendations made by the USPSTF address clinical preventive services for adults and children, and include screening tests, counseling services, and preventive medications.
The USPSTF was first established in 1984 under the auspices of the U.S. Public Health Service. Currently, the USPSTF is convened by the Director of AHRQ, and AHRQ provides ongoing scientific, administrative, and dissemination support for the USPSTF's operation. USPSTF members serve four year terms. New members are selected each year to replace those members who are completing their appointments.
The USPSTF is charged with rigorously evaluating the effectiveness, appropriateness and cost-effectiveness of clinical preventive services and formulating or updating recommendations regarding the appropriate provision of preventive services. See 42 U.S.C. 299b-4(a)(1). Current USPSTF recommendations and associated evidence reviews are available on the Internet (
USPSTF members currently meet three times a year for two days in the Washington, DC area. A significant portion of the USPSTF's work occurs between meetings during conference calls and via email discussions. Member duties include prioritizing topics, designing research plans, reviewing and commenting on systematic evidence reviews of evidence, discussing and making recommendations on preventive services, reviewing stakeholder comments, drafting final recommendation documents, and participating in workgroups on specific topics and methods. Members can expect to receive frequent emails, can expect to participate in multiple conference calls each month, and can expect to have periodic interaction with stakeholders. AHRQ estimates that members devote approximately 200 hours a year outside of in-person meetings to their USPSTF duties. The members are all volunteers and do not receive any compensation beyond support for travel to in person meetings.
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.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
This is notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404, that the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of a start-up exclusive evaluation option license agreement to practice the inventions embodied in U.S. Patent Application No. 61/172,099 entitled “Anti-human ROR1 Antibodies” filed April 23, 2009 [HHS Ref. E-097-2009/0-US-01], PCT Application No. PCT/US2010/032208 entitled “Anti-human ROR1 Antibodies” filed April 23, 2010 [HHS Ref. E-097-2009/0-PCT-02], European Patent Application No. 10715077.3 entitled, “Anti-human ROR1 Antibodies” filed October 24, 2011 [HHS Ref. No. E-097-2009/0-EP-03], U.S. Patent Application No. 13/265,582 entitled, “Anti-human ROR1 Antibodies” filed October 21, 2011 [HHS Ref. No. E-097-2009/0-US-04], Australian Patent Application No. 2010238723 entitled, “Anti-human ROR1 Antibodies” filed October 21, 2011 [HHS Ref. No. E-097-2009/0-AU-04], Canadian Patent Application No. 2,759,733 entitled, “Anti-human ROR1 Antibodies” filed October 21, 2011 [HHS Ref. No. E-097-2009/0-CA-05], US Provisional Application No. 61/418,550 entitled, “Chimeric rabbit/human ROR1 antibodies” filed December 1, 2010 [HHS Ref. E-039-2011/0-US-01], PCT Application No. PCT/US2011/062670 entitled, “Chimeric rabbit/human ROR1 antibodies” filed November 30, 2011 [HHS Ref. E-039-2011/0-PCT-02]; Australian Patent Application No. 2011336650 entitled, “Chimeric rabbit/human ROR1 antibodies” filed November 30, 2011 [HHS Ref. E-039-2011/0-AU-03], Canadian Patent Application No. 2818992 entitled, “Chimeric rabbit/human ROR1 antibodies” filed November 30, 2011 [HHS Ref. E-039-2011/0-CA-04], European Patent Application No. 11791733.6 entitled, “Chimeric rabbit/human ROR1 antibodies” filed November 30, 2011 [HHS Ref. E-039-2011/0-EP-05] and U.S. Patent Application No. 13/990,977 entitled, “Chimeric rabbit/human ROR1 antibodies” filed May 31, 2013 [HHS Ref. E-039-2011/0-US-06] and all related continuing and foreign patents/patent applications for the technology family to NBE Therapeutics, Ltd. The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the Government of the United States of America.
The prospective start-up exclusive evaluation option license territory may be worldwide and the field of use may be limited to pre-clinical evaluation and commercial development of an antibody-drug conjugate comprising an anti-tyrosine protein kinase transmembrane receptor (ROR1) antibody for the treatment of human ROR1 expressing cancers utilizing enzymatic conjugation methods linking a small molecule to a full-length antibody, wherein the full-length antibody moiety comprises the anti-ROR1 antibodies or CDR3s within the scope of the Licensed Patent Rights. For avoidance of doubt, this Agreement explicitly excludes the following: (a) Antibody-drug conjugates utilizing non-enzymatic conjugation linking small molecules to said antibodies, (b) immunotoxins comprising anti-ROR1 antibodies and
Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the NIH Office of Technology Transfer on or before April 6, 2015 will be considered.
Requests for copies of the patent applications, inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated exclusive evaluation option license should be directed to: Jennifer Wong, M.S., Senior Licensing and Patenting Manager, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, MD 20852-3804; Telephone: (301) 435-4633; Facsimile: (301) 402-0220; Email:
Tyrosine kinase-like orphan receptor 1 (ROR1) is a signature cell surface antigen for B-cell malignancies, most notably, B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (B-CLL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) cells, two incurable diseases. The investigators have developed a portfolio of chimeric anti-ROR1 monoclonal antibodies that selectively target ROR1 malignant B-cells but not normal B-cells. These antibodies may be linked to chemical drugs or biological toxins thus providing targeted cytotoxic delivery to malignant B-cells while sparing normal cells. Moreover, as these antibodies selectively target ROR1, they can also be used to diagnose B-cell malignancies.
The prospective start-up exclusive evaluation option license is being considered under the small business initiative launched on October 1, 2011 and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective start-up exclusive evaluation option license, and a subsequent start-up exclusive patent commercialization license, may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.
Any additional, properly filed, and complete applications for a license in the field of use filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated start-up exclusive evaluation option license. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2); notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The purpose of this meeting is to evaluate requests for preclinical development resources for potential new therapeutics for the treatment of cancer. The outcome of the evaluation will provide information to internal NCI committees that will decide whether NCI should support requests and make available contract resources for development of the potential therapeutic to improve the treatment of various forms of cancer. The research proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposed research projects, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited on one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
To
OMB approval is requested for 1 year. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 955.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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:
Comments on this notice must be received by May 22, 2015.
Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
The survey is designed to enable nursing homes to assess provider and staff opinions about patient safety issues, medical error, and error reporting and includes 42 items that measure 12 dimensions of patient safety culture. AHRQ made the survey publicly available along with a Survey User's Guide and other toolkit materials in November 2008 on the AHRQ Web site (located at
The AHRQ Nursing Home SOPS Comparative Database consists of data from the AHRQ Nursing Home SOPS. Nursing homes in the U.S. are asked to voluntarily submit data from the survey to AHRQ through its contractor, Westat. The Nursing Home SOPS database (OMB NO. 0935-0195, last approved on June 12, 2012) was developed by AHRQ in 2011 in response to requests from nursing homes interested in knowing how their patient safety culture survey results compare to those of other nursing homes in their efforts to improve patient safety.
The goal of this project is to renew the Nursing Home SOPS Comparative Database. This database will:
(1) Allow nursing homes to compare their patient safety culture survey results with those of other nursing homes,
(2) Provide data to nursing homes to facilitate internal assessment and learning in the patient safety improvement process, and
(3) Provide supplemental information to help nursing homes identify their strengths and areas with potential for improvement in patient safety culture.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, Westat, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research 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; quality measurement and improvement; and database development. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1), (2), and (8).
To achieve the goal of this project the following activities and data collections will be implemented:
(1) Eligibility and Registration Form—The nursing home (or parent organization) point of contact (POC) completes a number of data submission steps and forms, beginning with the completion of an online eligibility and registration form. The purpose of this form is to determine the eligibility status and initiate the registration process for nursing homes seeking to voluntarily submit their Nursing Home
(2) Data Use Agreement—The purpose of the data use agreement, completed by the nursing home POC, is to state how data submitted by nursing homes will be used and provides confidentiality assurances.
(3) Nursing Home Site Information Form—The purpose of the site information form is to obtain basic information about the characteristics of the nursing homes submitting their Nursing Home SOPS data to the Nursing Home SOPS Comparative Database (
(4) Data Files Submission—The number of submissions to the database is likely to vary each year because nursing homes do not administer the survey and submit data every year. Data submission is typically handled by one POC who is either a corporate level health care manager for a Quality Improvement Organization (QIO), a survey vendor who contracts with a nursing home to collect their data, or a nursing home Director of Nursing or nurse manager. POCs submit data on behalf of 5 nursing homes, on average, because many nursing homes are part of a QIO or larger nursing home or health system that includes many nursing home sites, or the POC is a vendor that is submitting data for multiple nursing homes. POCs upload their data file(s), using the nursing home data file specifications, to ensure that users submit standardized and consistent data in the way variables are named, coded, and formatted.
Survey data from the AHRQ Nursing Home SOPS are used to produce three types of products: (1) A Nursing Home SOPS Comparative Database Report that is produced periodically and made publicly available on the AHRQ Web site (see
Nursing homes are asked to voluntarily submit their Nursing Home SOPS survey data to the Comparative Database. The data are then cleaned and aggregated and used to produce a Comparative Database Report that displays averages, standard deviations, and percentile scores on the survey's 42 items and 12 patient safety culture dimensions, as well as displaying these results by nursing home characteristics (bed size, urbanicity, ownership, and Census Bureau Region, etc.) and respondent characteristics (work area/unit, staff position, and interaction with patients).
Data submitted by nursing homes are also used to give each nursing home its own customized survey feedback report that presents the nursing home's results compared to the latest comparative database results. If a nursing home submits data more than once, its survey feedback report also presents trend data, comparing its previous and most recent data.
Nursing homes use the Nursing Home SOPS, Comparative Database Reports and Individual Nursing Home Survey Feedback Reports for a number of purposes, to:
• Raise staff awareness about patient safety.
• Diagnose and assess the current status of patient safety culture in their nursing home.
• Identify strengths and areas for patient safety culture improvement.
• Examine trends in patient safety culture change over time.
• Evaluate the cultural impact of patient safety initiatives and interventions.
• Compare patient safety culture survey results with other nursing homes in their efforts to improve patient safety and health care quality.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in the database. An estimated 300 POCs, each representing an average of 5 individual nursing homes each, will complete the database submission steps and forms annually. Completing the eligibility and registration form will take about 3 minutes. Each POC will complete a data use agreement which takes about 3 minutes to complete. The Nursing Home Site Information Form is completed by all POCs for each of their nursing homes (300 x 5 = 1,500 forms in total) and is estimated to take 5 minutes to complete. The POC will submit data for all of the nursing homes he/she represents, which will take 1 hour on average. The total annual burden hours are estimated to be 455.
The 300 respondents/POCs shown in Exhibit 1 are based on an estimate of nursing homes submitting data in the coming years, with the following assumptions:
• 105 POCs for QIOs submitting on behalf of 10 nursing homes each
• 18 POCs for vendors outside of QIOs submitting on behalf of 10 nursing homes each
• 177 independent nursing homes submitting on their own behalf
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden based on the respondents' time to submit their data. The cost burden is estimated to be $20,839 annually.
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 federal government currently collects a set of performance measures from HM and RF grantees. The purpose of this previously approved information collection is to allow OFA and ACF to carry out their responsibilities for program accountability. Descriptions of the information collection may be found at
The FaMLE Cross-site project will answer three main research questions: (1) What strategies did grantees use to design well-conceived programs? (2) What strategies did grantees use to successfully implement well-conceived programs? (3) What were the reported outcomes for participants in the programs? In order to answer these questions, we are considering a new set of data collection activities.
On November 6, 2014, ACF published a
• Applicant characteristics;
• Program operations (including program characteristics and service delivery); and
• Participant outcomes (will be measured both at initiation of program
These draft measures were developed per extensive review of the research literature and grantees' past measures.
The next set of grantees will be required to submit data on a set of standardized measures covering these areas on a regular basis (
• Quarterly Performance Report (QPR), and
• Semi-annual Performance Progress Report (PPR).
A new management information system is being developed which will improve efficiency and the quality of data, and make reporting easier.
Standardized measures and reporting in these areas will enable ACF to track programming outputs and outcomes across programs, and will allow grantees to self-monitor progress.
• Staff interview protocol on program design (will be collected from about half of all grantees);
• Staff interview protocols on program implementation (will be collected from about 10 grantees); and
• Program participant focus group protocol (will be conducted with about 10 grantees).
In response to the previous request, ACF received 57 requests for the proposed measures and 28 emails with comments during the 60-day comment period. Comments were received in eight categories:
• Literacy levels
• Length
• Appropriateness of questions
• Youth Survey
• Case management expectations
• Mode of administration
• Quarterly reporting
• Miscellaneous
A summary of the comments received in these areas and ACF's responses is included in the OMB package and is available upon request (see contact information below). Revised versions of the data collection instruments are also included in the OMB package and available upon request.
These estimates are greater than those included in the 60-day
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 195,270.
Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address:
OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit Information Collection Requests (ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a revision to the following collections of information: 1625-0006, Shipping Articles and 1625-0018, Official Logbook. Our ICRs describe the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting these ICRs to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 22, 2015.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2015-0070] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following means:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet at
Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet at
Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-475-3929, for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, 202-366-9826, for questions on the docket.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collections, and other important information describing the Collections. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise these ICRs or decide not to seek approval of revisions of the Collections. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2015-0070], and must be received by May 22, 2015. We will post all comments received, without change, to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-2015-0070], indicate the specific section of the document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material online (
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
1.
2.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice of guidance.
This Notice provides guidelines that describe the application process for grants and the criteria for awarding Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) grants in the fiscal year (FY) 2014 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program year. It explains the differences, if any, between these guidelines and those recommended by representatives of the Nation's fire service leadership during the annual Criteria Development meeting, which was held October 27-28, 2014. The application period for the FY 2014 FP&S Grant Program year will be held March 16-April 17, 2015, and will be announced on the AFG Web site (
15 U.S.C. 2229.
Grant applications for the FP&S Grant Program will be accepted electronically at
Assistance to Firefighters Grants Branch, Stop 3620, DHS/FEMA, 800 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20472-3620.
Catherine Patterson, Chief, Assistance to Firefighters Grants Branch, 1-866-274-0960.
The purpose of the AFG Program is to enhance the safety of the public and firefighters with respect to fire and fire-related hazards. The FEMA Grant Programs Directorate administers the FP&S Grant Program as part of the AFG Program.
FP&S Grants are offered to support projects in two activities:
1. Activities designed to reach high-risk target groups and mitigate the incidence of death and injuries caused by fire and fire-related hazards (“FP&S Activity”).
2. Projects aimed at improving firefighter safety, health and wellness through research and development that reduces firefighter fatalities and injuries (“R&D Activity”).
The grant program's authorizing statute requires that each year DHS publish in the
Congress appropriated $340,000,000 for AFG in FY 2014 pursuant to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2014, Public Law 113-76. From this amount, $34,000,000 will be made available for FP&S Grant awards, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2229(h)(5), which states that not less than 10 percent of available grant funds each year are awarded under the FP&S Grant Program. Funds appropriated for all FY 2014 AFG awards, pursuant to Public Law 113-76, will be available for obligation and award until September 30, 2015.
From the approximately 1,200 applications that will be requesting assistance, FEMA anticipates that it will award approximately 150 FP&S Grants from available grant funding.
DHS awards grants on a competitive basis to the applicants that best address the FP&S Grant Program's priorities and provide the most compelling justification. Applications that best address the Program's priorities will be reviewed by a panel composed of fire service personnel.
All applications for grants will be prepared and submitted through the AFG e-Grant application portal (
The FP&S Grant Program panels will review the applications and score them using the following criteria areas:
The applications submitted under the R&D Activity will be reviewed first by a panel of fire service members to identify those applications most relevant to the fire service. The following evaluation criteria will be used for this review:
The applications that are determined most likely to be implemented to enable improvement in firefighter safety, health, or wellness will be deemed to be in the “competitive range” and will be forwarded to the second level of application review, which is the scientific panel review process. This panel will be comprised of scientists and technology experts who have expertise pertaining to the subject matter of the proposal.
The Scientific Technical Evaluation Panel for the R&D Activity will review the application and evaluate it using the following criteria:
The following entities are eligible to apply directly to FEMA under this solicitation:
1. Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) Activity: Eligible applicants for this activity include fire departments, national, regional, state, local, Native American tribal, and nonprofit organizations that are recognized for their experience and expertise in fire prevention and safety programs and activities. Both private and public non-profit organizations are eligible to apply for funding in this activity. For-profit organizations, federal agencies, and individuals are not eligible to receive a FP&S Grant Award under the FP&S Activity.
2. Firefighter Safety Research and Development (R&D) Activity: Eligible applicants for this activity include national, state, local, Native American tribal, and nonprofit organizations, such as academic (
The aforementioned entities are encouraged to apply, especially those that are recognized for their experience and expertise in firefighter safety, health, and wellness research and development activities. Fire departments are not eligible to apply for funding in the R&D activity. Additionally, for-profit organizations, federal agencies, and individuals are not eligible to receive a grant award under the R&D Activity.
Applications and awards are limited to a maximum federal share of $1.5 million dollars, regardless of applicant type.
Grantees must share in the costs of the projects funded under this grant program as required by 15 U.S.C. 2229(k)(1) and in accordance with 44 CFR 13.24 and 2 CFR 215.23, but they are not required to have the cost-share at the time of application nor at the time of award. However, before a grant is awarded, FEMA will contact potential awardees to determine whether the grantee has the funding in hand or if the grantee has a viable plan to obtain the funding necessary to fulfill the cost-sharing requirement.
In general, an eligible applicant seeking an FP&S grant to carry out an activity shall agree to make available non-federal funds to carry out such activity in an amount equal to, and not less than, five percent of the grant awarded. Cash match and in-kind matches are both allowable in the FP&S Grant Program. Cash (hard) matches include non-federal cash spent for project-related costs. In-kind (soft) matches include, but are not limited to, the valuation of in-kind services. In-kind is the value of something received or provided that does not have a cost associated with it. For example, where an in-kind match (other than cash payments) is permitted, then the value of donated services could be used to comply with the match requirement. Also, third party in-kind contributions may count toward satisfying match requirements provided the grantee receiving the contributions expends them as allowable costs in compliance with provisions listed above.
Grantees under this grant program must also agree to a maintenance of effort requirement as required by 15 U.S.C. 2229(k)(3) (referred to as a “maintenance of expenditure” requirement in that statute). Per this requirement, a grantee shall agree to maintain during the term of the grant the grantee's aggregate expenditures relating to the activities allowable under the FP&S Funding Opportunity Announcement at not less than 80 percent (80%) of the average amount of such expenditures in the two (2) fiscal years preceding the fiscal year in which the grant amounts are received.
In cases of demonstrated economic hardship, and on the application of the grantee, the Administrator of FEMA may waive or reduce certain grantees' cost share or maintenance of
On July 29, 2010, the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) was moved into the System for Award Management (SAM). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued guidance to federal agencies requiring all prime recipients of federal grants to register in SAM. SAM is the primary vendor database for the Federal Government to collect, validate, store, and disseminate data from a secure centralized system. SAM consolidated the capabilities found in CCR and other federal procurement systems into one new system.
There is no charge to register in
Applicants may only submit one (1) application, but may submit for up to three (3) projects under each activity (FP&S and R&D). Any applicant that submits more than one (1) application may have
Under the FP&S Activity, applicants may apply under the following categories:
Under the R&D Activity, applicants may apply under the following categories:
Prior to the start of the FY 2014 FP&S Grant Program application period, FEMA will provide applicants with technical assistance tools (available at the AFG Web site:
Applicants are advised to access the application electronically at
In completing an application under this funding opportunity, applicants will be asked to provide relevant information on their organization's characteristics and existing capabilities. Those applicants are asked to answer questions about their grant request that reflect the funding priorities, described below. In addition, each applicant will complete narratives for each project or grant activity requested.
The following are the funding priorities for each category under the FP&S Activity:
Under the R&D Activity, in order to identify and address the most important elements of firefighter safety, FEMA looked to the fire service for its input and recommendations. In June 2005, the National Fallen Firefighters' Foundation (NFFF) hosted a working group to facilitate the development of an agenda for the nation's fire service, and in particular for firefighter safety. In May 2011, the NFFF again hosted a working group to update the agenda with current priorities. A copy of the research agenda is available on the NFFF Web site at
Projects that meet the intent of this research agenda with respect to firefighter health and safety, as identified by the NFFF working group, will be given consideration under the R&D Activity. However, the applicant is not limited to these specific projects. All proposed projects, regardless of whether they have been identified by this working group, will be evaluated on their relevance to firefighter health and safety, and scientific rigor.
The electronic application process will permit the applicant to enter and save the application data. The system does not permit the submission of incomplete applications. Except for the narrative textboxes, the application will use a “point-and-click” selection process or require the entry of data (
Each year, DHS convenes a panel of fire service professionals to develop the funding priorities and other implementation criteria for AFG. The Criteria Development Panel is comprised of representatives from nine major fire service organizations who are charged with making recommendations to FEMA regarding the creation of new funding priorities, the modification of existing funding priorities, and the development of criteria for awarding grants. The nine major fire service organizations represented on the panel are:
The FY 2014 criteria development panel meeting occurred January 8-9, 2014. The content of the FY 2014 FP&S Funding Opportunity Announcement reflects the implementation of the Criteria Development Panel's recommendations with respect to the priorities, direction, and criteria for awards. All of the funding priorities for the FY 2014 FP&S Grant Program are designed to address the following:
(1) The “Guidance and Application Kit” has been reformatted to match the DHS Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) template.
(2) Sprinkler awareness was added as a priority under the General Education/Awareness category.
(3) The period of performance for applicants under the FP&S Activity was extended to up to 24 months. Applicants will now have the option to select either a 12 month period of performance or 24 month period of performance, based on the complexity of the project.
The program's authorizing statute requires that each year DHS publish in the
DHS will review and evaluate all FP&S applications submitted using the funding priorities and evaluation criteria described in this document, which are based on recommendations from the AFG Criteria Development Panel.
All eligible applications will be evaluated by a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP). The TEP is comprised of a panel of Peer Reviewers. The TEP will assess each application's merits with respect to the detail provided in the Narrative Statement on the activity, including the evaluation elements listed in the Evaluation Criteria identified above.
The panel of Peer Reviewers will independently score each project within the application, discuss the merits and/or shortcomings of the application, and document the findings. A consensus is not required. The highest ranked applications will receive further technical review to assess strengths and weaknesses, how readily weaknesses may be resolved, and the likely impact of the proposed activities on the safety of the target audience.
R&D applications will go through a two-phase review process. First, all applications will be reviewed by a panel of fire service experts to assess relevance, meaning the likely impact of the proposed R&D application to enable improvement in firefighter safety, health, or wellness. They will also assess the need for the research results and the likelihood that the results would be implemented by the fire service in the U.S. Applications that are deemed likely to be implemented to enable improvement in firefighter safety, health, or wellness will then receive further consideration by a science review panel. This panel will be comprised of scientists and technology experts who have expertise pertaining to the subject matter of the proposal.
Reviewers will independently score applications and, if necessary, discuss the merits or shortcomings of the application in order to reconcile any major discrepancies identified by the reviewers. A consensus is not required.
With input from these panels, for the highest ranked applications, FEMA will review each application's strengths and weaknesses, how best the strengths fit the priorities of the FP&S Program, and how readily the weaknesses may be resolved to support likely impact of the project to improve firefighter safety, heath, or wellness.
Projects receiving the highest scores then will undergo a technical review by a subject matter specialist to assess the technical feasibility of the project and a programmatic review to assess eligibility and other factors.
After the completion of the technical reviews, DHS will select a sufficient number of awardees from this application period to obligate all of the available grant funding. It will evaluate and act on applications within 90 days following the close of the application period. Award announcements will be made on a rolling basis until all available grant funds have been committed. Awards will not be made in any specified order. DHS will notify unsuccessful applicants as soon as it is feasible.
Funding decisions will be informed by an assessment of how well the application addresses the criteria and considerations listed below. Applications will be reviewed by the TEP using weighted evaluation criteria to score the project. These scores will impact the ranking of a project for funding.
The relative weight of the evaluation criteria in the determination of the grant award is listed below.
Funding decisions will be informed by an assessment of how well the application addresses the criteria and considerations listed below.
All applications will reviewed by a fire service expert panel using weighted evaluation criteria, and those applications deemed to be in the “competitive range” will then be reviewed by a scientific peer review panel evaluation using weighted evaluation criteria to score the project. Scientific evaluations will impact the ranking of the project for funding.
In addition, other Science Panel considerations are indicated in the list below:
Awards will be made using the results of peer-reviewed applications as the primary basis for decisions, regardless of activity. However, there are some exceptions to strictly using the peer review results. The applicant's prior AFG, Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER), and FP&S grant management performance will also be taken into consideration when making recommendations for award. All final funding determinations will be made by the Administrator of FEMA, or the Administrator's delegate.
Fire departments and other eligible applicants that have received funding under the FP&S program in previous years are eligible to apply for funding in the current year. However, DHS may take into account an applicant's performance on prior grants when making funding decisions on current applications.
Once every application in the competitive range has been through the technical evaluation phase, the applications will be ranked according to the average score awarded by the panel.
The ranking will be summarized in a Technical Report prepared by the AFG Program Office. A Grants Management Specialist will contact the applicant to discuss and/or negotiate the content of the application and SAM.gov registration before making final award decisions.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of an extension of a currently approved collection: 1625-0069, Ballast Water Management for Vessels with Ballast Tanks Entering U.S. Waters. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 22, 2015.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2015-0099] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following means:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Room W12-140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet at
Copies of the ICR(s) are available through the docket on the Internet at
Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, 202-366-9826, for questions on the docket.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise these ICRs or decide not to seek approval of revisions of the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2015-0099], and must be received by May 22, 2015. We will post all comments received, without change, to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-2015-0099], indicate the specific section of the document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material online (via
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
1.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice is to announce a public meeting to solicit public input on the proposed “Revised Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management.”
The public meeting will be held in New York, NY on March 27, 2015, from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
The public meeting will be held in New York, NY, at Columbia Law School, Room 104, 435 West 116th Street, New York, NY 10027.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, please contact the person listed in the
Due to space constraints of the facility, seating will be limited to 180 participants for the meeting. To reserve a seat in advance for this meeting, please provide a request via email or mail with the contact information of the participant (including name, mailing address, and email address), the meeting to be attended, and include the subject/attention line (or on the envelope if by mail): Reservation Request for FFRMS Meeting. Advance reservations are preferred at least three (3) business days prior to the meeting to ensure processing, but will be accepted until capacity is reached. Unregistered participants will be accepted after all participants with reservations have been accommodated and will be admitted on a first-come, first-serve basis, provided the person capacity is not exceeded. To submit reservations, please email:
To facilitate public participation, members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the issues to be considered at the public meetings. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
Bradley Garner, 202-646-3901 or
On January 30, 2015, the President signed Executive Order 13690, directing FEMA, on behalf of the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group, to publish for public comment draft revised Floodplain Management Guidelines to provide guidance to agencies on the implementation of Executive Order 11988, as amended, consistent with a new Federal Flood Risk Management Standard. These draft revised Guidelines were developed by the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group in consultation with the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force. FEMA is publishing this Notice on behalf of the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group, which is chaired by FEMA, to solicit and consider public input on the draft revised Guidelines at a public meeting.
Background information about these topics is available on the FFRMS Web site at
The meeting is exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group is an intergovernmental committee and falls under the intergovernmental committee exception to FACA, 41 CFR 102-3.40(g).
Executive Order 11988, as amended; Executive Order 13690.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, PIH, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., (L'Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109, (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Mussington.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications; request for public comment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered or threatened species. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), prohibits activities with endangered and threatened species unless a Federal permit allows such activities. Both the Act and the National Environmental Policy Act require that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
To ensure consideration, written comments must be received on or before April 22, 2015.
Susan Jacobsen, Chief, Division of Classification and Restoration, by U.S. mail at Division of Classification and Recovery, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103; or by telephone at 505-248-6920. Please refer to the respective permit number for each application when submitting comments.
Susan Jacobsen, Chief, Division of Classification and Restoration, by U.S. mail at P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103; or by telephone at 505-248-6920.
The Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
A permit granted by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act authorizes applicants to conduct activities with U.S. endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes, enhancement of survival or propagation, or interstate commerce. Our regulations regarding implementation of section 10(a)(1)(A) permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following applications. Please refer to the appropriate permit number (
Documents and other information the applicants have submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of the following species within Arizona:
Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of the following species within Arizona:
Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys for the following species in New Mexico:
Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct husbandry and holding of the following species at the facility in Arizona:
Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys for the following species in Arizona:
Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of the following species in Texas:
Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys, stranding activities, holding, and rehabilitation for Kemp's ridley (
Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys for interior least tern (
Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct husbandry and holding for the following species at the zoo in Texas:
Applicant requests an amendment to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct husbandry and holding of Austin blind salamanders (
Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of the following species in Texas:
Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys for golden-cheeked warbler (
Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys for American burying beetle (
Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys for black-capped vireo (
Applicant requests an amendment to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of and regular management duties associated with the following species within the southwest region:
Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys and research activities for ocelot (
In compliance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321
All comments and materials we receive in response to this request will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in the
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.
We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of issuance of permits.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have issued the following permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (Act).
Kathy Konishi, Recovery Permit Coordinator, Ecological Services, (719) 628-2670 (phone);
We have issued the following permits in response to recovery permit applications we received under the authority of section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written requires for a copy of such documents to Kathy Konishi (see
We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered or threatened species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), prohibits activities with endangered and threatened species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. The Act requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by April 20, 2015.
You may submit comments or requests for copies or more information by any of the following methods. Alternatively, you may use one of the following methods to request hard copies or a CD-ROM of the documents. Please specify the permit you are interested in by number (
•
•
•
Kathy Konishi, Recovery Permits Coordinator, Ecological Services, (719) 628-2670 (phone);
The Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
A permit granted by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act authorizes the permittees to conduct activities with U.S. endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes, enhancement of propagation or survival, or interstate commerce (the latter only in the event that it facilitates scientific purposes or enhancement of propagation or survival). Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
We invite local, State, and Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following applications. Documents and other information the applicants have submitted with their applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
The applicants request an amendment to add New Mexico meadow jumping mouse (
The applicant requests a permit to propagate Wyoming toads (
The applicant requests a permit to conduct presence/absence surveys for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse (
The applicant requests the renewal of a permit for educational display and propagation of bonytail (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
All comments and materials we receive in response to these requests will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in the
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.
We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on four applications to conduct activities intended enhance the survival of target endangered or threatened species. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), prohibits certain activities with endangered and threatened species unless authorized by a Federal permit. The Act requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by April 22, 2015.
You may submit comments or requests for copies or more information by any of the following methods. Alternatively, you may use one of the following methods to request hard copies or a CD-ROM of the documents. Please specify the permit you are interested in by number (
•
•
•
Kathy Konishi, Recovery Permits Coordinator, Ecological Services, (719) 628-2670 (phone);
The Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
A permit granted by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act authorizes the permittees to conduct activities with U.S. endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes, enhancement of propagation or survival, or interstate commerce (the latter only in the event that it facilitates scientific purposes or enhancement of propagation or survival). Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
We invite local, State, and Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following applications. Documents and other information the applicants have submitted with their applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
The applicant requests a permit to conduct presence/absence surveys for Topeka shiner (
The applicants request an amendment to expand the geographic survey area for Southwestern willow flycatcher (
The applicant requests a permit to conduct presence/absence surveys for New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
The applicant requests a permit to conduct presence/absence surveys for pallid sturgeon (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
All comments and materials we receive in response to these requests will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in the
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.
We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and environmental assessment (EA) for the Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge, NWR) for public review and comment. In this draft CCP/EA we describe how we propose to manage the Refuge for the next 15 years.
To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments by April 22, 2015. We will hold an open house-style meeting during the comment period to receive comments and provide information on the draft plan. In addition, we will use special mailings, newspaper articles, Internet postings, and other media announcements to inform people of opportunities for input.
Send your comments or requests for more information by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You will find the draft CCP/EA, as well as information about the planning process and a summary of the CCP, on the planning Web site at
Tom Kerr, 715-246-7784.
With this notice, we continue the CCP process for Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge, which we began by publishing a notice of intent in the
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Administration Act), requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose in developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year strategy for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and Service policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Administration Act.
Each unit of the NWRS was established for specific purposes. We use these purposes as the foundation for developing and prioritizing the management goals and objectives for each refuge within the NWRS mission, and to determine how the public can use each refuge. The planning process is a way for us and the public to evaluate management goals and objectives that will ensure the best possible approach to wildlife, plant, and habitat conservation, while providing for wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities that are compatible with each refuge's establishing purposes and the mission of the NWRS.
The draft CCP/EA may be found at
The alternatives analyzed in detail include:
• Alternative A: Current Management (No Action)—This alternative reflects the current management direction of Whittlesey Creek NWR. It provides the baseline against which to compare other alternatives. For NEPA purposes, this is referred to as the “No Action” alternative.
• Alternative B: Refuge and Watershed Restoration; Maintain Visitor Center Partnership (Preferred Alternative)—Under this alternative, prioritized focus areas for habitat restoration would be developed for the watershed and the Refuge using data from sediment and hydrology models. The quantity and quality of habitat for native brook trout and migratory waterfowl and shorebirds would increase. Stream and floodplain hydrology would better emulate natural seasonal and long-term variability. Current Service participation in the Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center (NGLVC) would continue; Refuge staff would participate in NGLVC programs that align with the NWRS mission and Refuge purposes.
• Alternative C: Watershed Restoration; Expand Visitor Center Partnership—Under this alternative, habitat restoration would focus on reducing sedimentation and flood peaks in the Whittlesey Creek watershed. The quantity and quality of habitat for native brook trout would increase and stream hydrology would better emulate natural seasonal and long-term variability. Service participation in the NGLVC would increase, and Refuge visitor services activities would focus on NGLVC programs and special events.
• Alternative D: Refuge Restoration; Reduce Visitor Center Partnership—Under this alternative, habitat restoration would focus on floodplain forest, wetlands, and streams within the Refuge boundary. The quality of habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds would improve and floodplain hydrology would better emulate seasonal and long-term variability. Service participation in the NGLVC would decrease; Refuge staff and visitor services activities would move off site.
We will give the public an opportunity to provide input at a public meeting. You can obtain the schedule from the address or Web site listed in this notice (see
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces that the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board will conduct a meeting on matters pertaining to management and protection of wild, free-roaming horses and burros on the Nation's public lands.
The Advisory Board will meet on Wednesday April 22, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time and Thursday April 23, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. This will be a two day meeting.
This Advisory Board meeting will take place in Columbus, Ohio at the Hyatt Regency Columbus, 350 North High Street, Columbus, OH 43215, telephone 614-463-1234.
Written comments pertaining to the April 22-23, 2015, Advisory Board meeting can be mailed to National Wild Horse and Burro Program,WO-260, Attention: Ramona DeLorme, 1340 Financial Boulevard, Reno, NV 89502-7147, or sent electronically to
Ramona DeLorme, Wild Horse and Burro Administrative Assistant, at 775-861-6583. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board advises the Secretary of the Interior, the BLM Director, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Chief of the Forest Service on matters pertaining to the management and protection of wild, free-roaming horses and burros on the Nation's public lands. The Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board operates under the authority of 43 CFR 1784. The tentative agenda for the meeting is:
The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. An individual with a disability needing an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting, such as an interpreting service, assistive listening device, or materials in an alternate format, must notify Ms. DeLorme two weeks before the scheduled meeting date. Although the BLM will attempt to meet a request received after that date, the requested auxiliary aid or service may not be available because of insufficient time to arrange for it.
The Federal Advisory Committee Management Regulations at 41 CFR 101-6.1015(b), requires BLM to publish in the
On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. members of the public will have the opportunity to make comments to the Advisory Board on the Wild Horse and Burro Program. Persons wishing to make comments during the meeting should register in person with the BLM by 2:00 p.m. on April 22, 2015, at the meeting location. Depending on the number of commenters, the Advisory Board may limit the length of comments. At previous meetings, comments have been limited to three minutes in length; however, this time may vary. Commenters should address the specific wild horse and burro-related topics listed on the agenda. Speakers are requested to submit a written copy of their statement to the address listed in the
Participation in the Advisory Board meeting is not a prerequisite for submission of written comments. The BLM invites written comments from all interested parties. Your written comments should be specific and explain the reason for any recommendation. The BLM appreciates any and all comments. The BLM considers comments that are either supported by quantitative information or studies or those that include citations to and analysis of applicable laws and regulations to be the most useful and likely to influence BLM's decisions on the management and protection of wild horses and burros.
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.
43 CFR 1784.4-1.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from China and/or the suspension agreements on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Russia and Ukraine would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5)(B). For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
Michael Haberstroh (202-205-3390), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Chief Evaluation Office, Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance 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. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that required 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 requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. A copy of the proposed Information Collection Request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee section below on or before May 22, 2015.
You may submit comments by either one of the following methods:
Christina Yancey by email at
The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 was signed into law on February 22, 2012. Subtitle D of Title II of the Act contains several provisions concerning the STC program, including Section 2166 requiring the Secretary of Labor to submit a final report to Congress on the implementation of the provisions of Subtitle D no later than four years after the date of enactment.
The STC program is an option within the Unemployment Insurance (UI) system that allows employers to reduce the hours of workers, while permitting workers to receive partial UI benefits for the non-worked hours. The objective of STC is to avoid layoffs during periods of reduced labor demand and thereby allow businesses to maintain their operations, retain valued employees, and prevent company morale from deteriorating. The program was first initiated California in 1978 and a temporary national STC program was adopted in 1982 under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA, P.L. 97-248). The STC program became permanent in Federal law in 1992, when states were permitted to adopt their own STC programs as part of State UI laws. Under Section 303(a)(5) of the Social Security Act and Section 3304(a)(4) of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, the Unemployment Trust Fund can pay for STC. Each state has an account within the Fund from which its pays UI benefits.
The Employment and Training Administration's Office of Unemployment Insurance has oversight responsibility for the STC program. The Chief Evaluation Office of the Department of Labor (DOL) is conducting a rigorous demonstration and impact evaluation of the STC
Currently, the Department of Labor is soliciting comments concerning the above data collection for the demonstration and evaluation of the short-term compensation program. Comments are requested to:
* Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
* evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
* enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
* minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
At this time, the Department of Labor is requesting clearance for data collection for the demonstration and evaluation of the short-term compensation program via collection of post-implementation data elements and fieldwork efforts.
Comments submitted in response to this request will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval; they will also become a matter of public record.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for nominations.
The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health invites interested individuals to submit nominations for membership on FACOSH.
You must submit (postmarked, sent, transmitted, or received) your nominations by May 15, 2015.
You may submit nominations and supporting materials using one of the following methods:
To read or download submissions in response to this
The Assistant Secretary of OSHA invites interested individuals to submit nominations for membership on FACOSH.
• Two management representatives; and
• Three labor representatives.
FACOSH members serve at the pleasure of the Secretary and may be appointed to successive terms. FACOSH meets at least twice a year.
The Department of Labor is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks broad-based and diverse FACOSH membership. Any interested federal agency, labor organization representing federal workers, or individual(s) may nominate one or more qualified persons for membership on FACOSH. Interested individuals also are invited and encouraged to submit statements in support of particular nominees.
1. The nominee's name, contact information and current employment;
2. The nominee's resume or curriculum vitae, including prior membership on FACOSH and other relevant organizations, associations and committees;
3. Category of membership (management, labor) that the nominee is qualified to represent;
4. A summary of the nominee's background, experience and qualifications that address the nominee's suitability to serve on FACOSH;
5. Articles or other documents the nominee has authored that indicate the nominee's knowledge, experience and expertise in occupational safety and health, particularly as it pertains to the federal workforce;
6. A statement that the nominee is aware of the nomination, is willing to regularly attend and participate in FACOSH meetings, and has no apparent conflicts of interest that would preclude membership on FACOSH; and
7. A self-certification statement that in the past 10 years, the nominee has not been convicted of a felony, or been imprisoned, been on probation, or been on parole, for a felony; or is not currently under charges for a felony.
The information received through the nomination process, along with other relevant sources of information, will assist the Secretary in making appointments to FACOSH. In selecting FACOSH members, the Secretary will consider individuals nominated in response to this
OSHA will consider any nomination submitted in response to this notice for the vacancies that occur on January 1, 2016. In addition, OSHA will consider the nominations received by May 1, 2015, for any vacancy that may occur during 2015 and for member positions that open January 1, 2017, provided the information the nominee submitted continues to remain current and accurate. OSHA believes that rolling over nominations for future consideration will make it easier for interested individuals to be considered for membership on FACOSH. This process also will provide OSHA with a broad base of nominations for ensuring that FACOSH membership is fairly balanced as the Federal Advisory Committee Act requires (5 U.S.C. App.2, Section (5)(b)(2); 41 CFR 102-3.30(c)). OSHA will continue to request nominations as vacancies occur, but nominees whose information is current and accurate will not need to resubmit a nomination.
Because of security-related procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of nominations. For information about security procedures concerning the submission of materials by mail, hand, express delivery, messenger or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office (see
All submissions in response to this
Electronic copies of this
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice under the authority granted by 5 U.S.C. 7902, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 29 U.S.C. 668, Executive Order 12196 as amended, 41 CFR part 102-3, and Secretary of Labor's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912 (1/25/2012)).
Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments are invited on (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the time spent completing the application (“burden of the proposed collection of information”); (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of technology.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 28, 2015.
Jane Curlin, Director of Education Programs, Udall Foundation, 130 South Scott Avenue, Tucson, Arizona 85701, Fax: 520-670-5530, Phone: 520-901-8565, Email:
The proposed collections are necessary to accomplish the mandate of the Statute that the Udall Foundation should (1) conduct an annual selection process for the Udall Scholarship program to select scholars and honorable mentions (presently 50 for each); and (2) conduct an annual selection process for the Udall Internship program to select 12 interns. The applications are available from the Udall Foundation's Web site at
20 U.S.C. 5601-5609.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC).
Thursday, April 9, 2015, 9:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., Local Time; and Friday, April 10, 2015, 9:00 a.m.-12:00 noon, Local Time.
NASA Headquarters, Room 9H40, Program Review Center (PRC), 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546.
Ms. Marla King, NAC Administrative Officer, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-1148.
The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. This meeting is also available telephonically and by WebEx. You must use a touch tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may dial the USA toll free access number 1-844-467-6272 or USA local toll access number 1-720-259-6462, and then the numeric participant passcode: 758485 followed by the # sign. To join via WebEx, the link is
The agenda for the meeting will include the following:
Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID before receiving access to NASA Headquarters. Due to the Real ID Act, Public Law 109-13, any attendees with drivers licenses issued from non-compliant states/territories must present a second form of ID [Federal employee badge; passport; active military identification card; enhanced driver's license; U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner card; Native American tribal document; school identification accompanied by an item from LIST C (documents that establish employment authorization) from the “List of the Acceptable Documents” on Form I-9]. Non-compliant states/territories are: American Samoa, Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and New York. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 working days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; visa information (number, type, expiration date); passport information (number, country, telephone); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee. To expedite admittance, U.S. citizens and Permanent Residents (green card holders) can provide full name and citizenship status 3 working days in advance by contacting Ms. Marla King, via email at
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB review; comment request.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission may be obtained by calling 703-292-7556. NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as subsequently amended, includes a statutory charge to “. . . provide a central clearinghouse for the collection, interpretation, and analysis of data on scientific and engineering resources, and to provide a source of information for policy formulation by other agencies of the Federal Government.” The NSCG is designed to comply with these mandates by providing information on the supply and utilization of the nation's scientists and engineers.
The NSF uses the information from the NSCG to prepare congressionally mandated reports such as
The U.S. Census Bureau, as in the past, will conduct the NSCG for NSF. The survey data collection will begin in April 2015 using Web and mail questionnaires. Nonrespondents to the Web or mail questionnaire will be followed up by computer-assisted telephone interviewing. The survey will be collected in conformance with the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002, and the individual's response to the survey is voluntary. NSF will ensure that all information collected will be kept strictly confidential and will be used only for statistical purposes.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; opportunity to request a hearing and to petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received an application from Umetco Minerals Corporation for amendment of Materials License No. SUA-648 to modify the ground water monitoring program at Umetco's Gas Hills East site in Fremont and Natrona counties, Wyoming. The amendment would increase the number of wells in the ground water monitoring program, change the sampling period and parameters, change the reporting period for ground water monitoring reports and establish the ground water monitoring program as a stand-alone document, rather than an appendix in Umetco's Alternate Concentration Limit application.
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by May 22, 2015.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0066 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
• 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.
Dominick Orlando, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6749, email:
The NRC has received, by letter dated January 22, 2015, an application from Umetco Minerals Corporation to amend Materials License No. SUA-648 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15027A095). This license authorizes the possession of natural uranium and uranium waste tailings at the Gas Hills East site in Natrona and Fremont counties, Wyoming, which ceased uranium milling operations in 1984. The license currently requires that Umetco Minerals Corporation implement a ground water compliance monitoring program at the site. If approved, the amendment would modify this ground water monitoring program by increasing the number of wells in the ground water monitoring program, changing the sampling period and parameters, changing the reporting period for ground water monitoring reports, and establishing the ground water monitoring program as a stand-alone document, rather than an appendix in Umetco's Alternate Concentration Limit application.
Prior to approving the license amendment application, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the NRC's regulations. The NRC's findings will be documented in a technical evaluation report.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to Materials License No. SUA-648.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth, with particularity, the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted, with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion that support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with NRC regulations, policies, and procedures. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will set the time and place for any prehearing conferences and evidentiary hearings, and the appropriate notices will be provided.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by May 22, 2015. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions for leave to intervene set forth in this section. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by May 22, 2015.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.
Notice; Request for public comment.
As announced at the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board's (PCLOB) public meeting on July 23, 2014, the PCLOB is examining counterterrorism activities conducted under the Executive Order pertaining to the United States Intelligence Activities and their implications for privacy and civil liberties. As such, the PCLOB seeks public input to inform the Board's examination of activities conducted under the Executive Order.
Written comments may be submitted at any time prior to the closing of the comment period at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on June 16, 2015.
You may submit comments with the notice number PCLOB-2015-01 by the following methods:
•
•
•
Sharon Bradford Franklin, Executive Director, 202-331-1986.
The PCLOB seeks public input to inform the Board's examination of activities conducted under Executive Order (E.O.) 12333—United States Intelligence Activities. Although the Board recognizes that much information about activities under E.O. 12333 is classified and/or not publicly available, the Board seeks comments regarding any concerns about counterterrorism activities conducted under E.O. 12333 based on the information that is currently unclassified and publicly available, as well as suggestions for questions the PCLOB should ask as part of its inquiry.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Notice of Meeting of Securities and Exchange Commission Dodd-Frank Investor Advisory Committee.
The Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee, established pursuant to section 911 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, is providing notice that it will hold a public meeting. The public is invited to submit written statements to the Committee.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, April 9, 2015 from 9:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. (ET). Written statements should be received on or before April 9, 2015.
The meeting will be held in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at
Use the Commission's Internet submission form (
Send an email message to
Send paper statements to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Statements also will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Room 1580, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All statements received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
Marc Sharma, Senior Special Counsel, Office of the Investor Advocate, at (202) 551-3302, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
The meeting will be open to the public, except during portions of the meeting reserved for meetings of the Committee's subcommittees. Persons needing special accommodations to take part because of a disability should notify the contact person listed in
The agenda for the meeting includes: Remarks from Commissioners; nomination of candidates for officer positions and election of officers; a discussion of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's investor behavior survey results; a discussion of background checks as a means to address elder financial abuse (which may include a recommendation); a discussion of proxy access and staff review of Rule 14a-8(i)(9) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (which may include a recommendation); an update on the SEC proxy voting roundtable; an update on the recommendations of the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies; and nonpublic subcommittee meetings.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to simplify processing of Market Hours IOC orders and to make clarifying changes to the rule text of Rule 4751(h)(5).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to modify the time that Market Hours IOC (“MIOC”) orders are available for entry into the System.
NASDAQ is proposing to simplify the processing of MIOC orders to make it consistent with the meaning of a Time in Force of immediate or cancel
NASDAQ is accordingly deleting text from Rule 4751(h) that discusses MIOC order entry beginning at 4:00 a.m. Eastern Time and that NASDAQ will hold MIOC orders entered prior to 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time until 9:30 a.m. NASDAQ is also consolidating existing rule text and adding new text under the rule to make it clear that MIOC orders may be entered and potentially executed beginning after the completion of the NASDAQ Opening Cross.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Specifically, the changes are designed to promote consistency in the handling of immediate or cancel-designated orders and to provide clarity on when such orders are available for both entry and potential execution. Such changes do not place a burden on competition between market participants as the changes are applied consistently to all participants. Moreover, the proposed changes do not impose a burden on competition among exchanges as they are done in the interest of providing clarity and consistency in its rules, and are therefore irrelevant to competition.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) [sic] 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.
On September 15, 2014, International Securities Exchange, LLC (“Exchange” or “ISE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Amendment No. 1 has been placed in the public comment file for SR-ISE-2014-43 at
The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rules 810 (Limitations on Dealings) and 717 (Limitations on Orders) governing information barriers. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 810 to permit information to flow to a member's EAM unit, which handles the customer/agency side of the business, from its affiliated Primary Market Maker (“PMM”) and/or Competitive Market Maker (“CMM”) (jointly, “market makers”) unit. As amended, ISE Rule 810 will allow EAMs to know where, and at what price, their affiliated market makers are either quoting or have orders on the order book
The Exchange also proposes to amend ISE Rule 717, Supplementary Material .06 to specify that the orders of a EAM
As noted above, the Commission received one comment letter
The commenter believes there are two specific scenarios where a costumer may be harmed under this proposed rule change. First, the commenter states that EAMs could route customer orders to an affiliated market maker's quote at an exchange's best bid or offer rather than to an exchange with a better fill rate or price improvement mechanism.
The commenter indicates that these routing scenarios are not “mere conjecture” as broker-dealers “openly admit” that numerous factors are built into routing decisions that are primarily beneficial to broker-dealers.
The ISE responds that the commenter did not raise any new issues and its concerns were addressed in the Notice.
After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
Amended ISE Rule 810 permits a less restrictive, one-way information barrier between market makers and other business units, as opposed to the prior rule that required a prescriptive, two-way information barrier. Nonetheless, the Commission notes that Exchange members are still required to have policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of material, non-public information consistent with Section 15(g) of the Act
Finally, as noted above, the commenter expressed concern that this proposed rule change would introduce a conflict of interest that would erode the duty of best execution and harm customers. The Exchange believes, and the Commission agrees, that this proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, does not alter a broker-dealer's duty of best execution.
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 seeks to amend CBOE Rules 6.74A and 6.74B. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below (additions are
. . . Interpretations and Policies:
.04 [Any solicited orders submitted by the Initiating Trading Permit Holder to trade against the Agency Order may not be for the account of a Market-Maker assigned to the option class.]
. . . Interpretations and Policies:
.03 Under Rule 6.74B, Trading Permit Holders may enter contra orders that are solicited. The Auction provides a facility for Trading Permit Holders that locate liquidity for their customer orders. Trading Permit Holders may not use the Auction to circumvent Rules 6.45A.01, 6.45B.01 or 6.74A limiting principal transactions. This may include, but is not limited to, Trading Permit Holders entering contra orders that are solicited from (a) affiliated broker-dealers, or (b) broker-dealers with which the Trading Permit Holder has an arrangement that allows the Trading Permit Holder to realize similar economic benefits from the solicited transaction as it would achieve by executing the customer order in whole or in part as principal. Additionally, [solicited contra orders entered by Trading Permit Holders to trade against Agency Orders may not be for the account of a CBOE Market-Maker assigned to the options class.]
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules regarding the ability of a Market-Maker assigned to an options class to be solicited as the contra party to an Agency Order in that class on the Exchange's Automated Improvement Mechanism (“AIM”) and Solicitation Auction Mechanism
On the Exchange, there are a number of large, global Market-Making firms that have market-making and proprietary operations. In addition, there are small market-making firms that only have market-making operations. The current rule neither prohibits the proprietary arm of a global firm from submitting a contra order in these Auctions nor prohibits the global firm's market-making operation from responding to an Auction in which the proprietary desk has submitted a contra order. More importantly, if two Market-Makers are nominees of the same firm—one appointed to a class on CBOE and the other appointed in the same class on another exchange (PHLX for example)—the current rule allows the PHLX Market-Maker to be solicited to participate on an AIM order and the CBOE Market-Maker to respond to the AIM auction. The rule does, however, effectively prohibit the small market-making firms from providing liquidity in the form of contra orders. In preventing a Market-Maker assigned to an options class from being solicited by TPHs to trade against Agency Orders in that class, the small Market-Making firms are effectively prohibited from being solicited by TPHs to trade against nearly all Agency Orders. Because a TPH initiating an auction using AIM or SAM can thusly not solicit contra orders from these Market-Making firms, the TPH is unable to access the greater liquidity that these firms can provide. The Market-Makers, TPHs, and customers are harmed by this rule language, and the Exchange therefore proposes to delete it.
It is important to note that the rule language that the Exchange proposes to delete applies only to AIM and SAM transactions. As such, a Market-Maker assigned to an options class can currently be solicited to trade against an Agency Order in that class for non-AIM/SAM transactions. Therefore, because Market-Makers only face this prohibition for AIM and SAM transactions, the rules for whether a Market-Maker assigned to an options class can currently be solicited to trade against an Agency Order in that class differ depending on the execution mechanism. The proposed change would eliminate this difference.
In addition, the Boston Options Exchange LLC (“BOX”) rules include a “Directed Order” process that is functionally equivalent to the solicitation of orders, and also does not prevent Market-Makers from being solicited to trade against an Agency Order in a class in which the Market-Maker is appointed.
Furthermore, the Exchange does not believe there is a meaningful regulatory purpose behind the prohibition against Market-Makers being solicited to trade against an Agency Order in a class in which the Market-Maker is appointed because for the firms with appointments on multiple exchanges, the solicited order can simply come from a Market-Maker on a different exchange. More importantly, a Market-Maker that is solicited to trade against an Agency Order in a class in which the Market-Maker is appointed would still be required to abide by Exchange Rules 4.1 (Just and Equitable Principles of Trade), 4.18 (Prevention of the Misuse of Material, Nonpublic Information), and 6.9 (Solicited Transactions) (as well as all other Exchange rules, of course). As such, a Market-Maker would still be prohibited from, for example, learning (via solicitation) that a large order is being sent to the Exchange and therefore widening its quotes. Moreover, because upon entry, an AIM/SAM order is “stopped” for its full quantity at the contra order's price, if a Market-Maker were to widen his quotes, it would not impact the price of the trade. Also, because many classes on the Exchange have a number of Market-Makers appointed, the widening of quotes by one Market-Maker would likely have limited impact on the NBBO (and indeed, it is possible that the solicited Market-Maker that is widening quotes would not be on the NBBO in the first place). Regardless, the Exchange notes that it does not believe the changes contemplated in this filing will have an adverse effect on Market-Maker quoting because the Exchange believes Market-Makers will continue to seek access to order flow that comes into the Exchange outside of the auction process. In order to access that order flow, Market-Makers will need to continue to quote aggressively.
The Exchange is also proposing to add language that explicitly states that “a Market-Maker submitting a solicited order to execute against a particular Agency Order may not modify its pre-programmed response to Request for Responses based on information regarding the particular Agency Order or solicited order.” This language prohibits a Market-Maker from using any information regarding a particular Agency Order or the Market-Maker's solicited order for purposes of modifying the Market-Maker's Request for Responses. However, this language also recognizes that a Market-Maker's quotes may change for many reasons other than an Agency order or the Market-Maker's solicited order (
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 proposed change will provide TPHs initiating auctions via AIM and SAM with the ability to access more liquidity by allowing them to solicit Market-Makers assigned to the relevant options class. This will also let Market-Makers assigned to a class benefit from being able to be solicited for trades in that class. As such, the proposed rule change both provides greater access to liquidity and increases the market participants that can participate in a trade (thereby preventing discrimination against Market-Makers assigned to a class). In these ways, the proposed change removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable and should promote price competition by providing CBOE Market-Makers with a more reasonable opportunity to compete for proposed crosses along with other market participants. By providing CBOE Market-Makers with the opportunity to be solicited on AIM/SAM Agency Orders in classes in which the Market-Makers are appointed, the proposed change prevents discrimination by providing such Market-Makers with the same opportunity to participate in the transaction (via solicitation) with which other market participants are provided. Furthermore, the Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will alter Market-Maker incentives to respond to AIM/SAM Auctions. Market-Makers responding to Auctions are seeking to execute as many contracts as possible with the Agency order. The best way to accomplish that goal—currently and after the proposed rule change—is to aggressively respond to Auctions, regardless of who else may be responding or whether the contra-order is a solicited Market-Maker. An Auction with a solicited Market-Maker as contra should have no bearing on whether a competitive and interested responder will respond, nor should it have any bearing on which price that interested Market-Maker would place on his response. In addition, the Exchange does not believe this proposal will have an adverse effect on quoting because, as previously noted, in order to execute against order flow outside of Auctions or on other exchanges Market-Makers will have to continue to quote aggressively.
The proposed rule change also removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and prevents unfair discrimination, because a Market-Maker assigned to an options class can currently be solicited to trade against an Agency Order in that class for non-AIM/SAM transactions. Therefore, because Market-Makers only currently face this prohibition for AIM and SAM transactions, the rules for whether a Market-Maker assigned to an options class can currently be solicited to trade against an Agency Order in that class differ depending on the execution mechanism. The proposed change would eliminate this difference.
The proposed rule change also removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and prevents unfair discrimination, because BOX rules include a “Directed Order” process that allows for the solicitation of orders and does not include a prohibition that prevents Market-Makers from being solicited to trade against an Agency Order in a class in which the Market-Maker is appointed. As such, the Exchange merely proposes to put Market-Makers at CBOE on a similar competitive footing vis-à-vis these solicited orders.
The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change would not impact a Market-Maker's requirements to abide by Exchange Rules 4.1 (Just and Equitable Principles of Trade), 4.18 (Prevention of the Misuse of Material, Nonpublic Information), and 6.9 (Solicited Transactions). As such, a Market-Maker would still be prohibited from, for example, learning (via solicitation) that a large order is being sent to the Exchange and therefore widening its quotes. Indeed, while this could theoretically occur regarding non-AIM/SAM solicitation orders, the Exchange currently prohibits this activity. Moreover, because upon entry, an AIM/SAM order is “stopped” for its full quantity at the contra order's price, if a Market-Maker were to widen his quotes, it would not impact the price of the trade. Also, because many classes on the Exchange have a number of Market-Makers appointed, the widening of quotes by one Market-Maker would likely have limited impact on the NBBO (and indeed, it is possible that the solicited Market-Maker that is widening quotes would not on the NBBO in the first place). As previously noted, however, the Exchange does not believe the changes in this proposal will adversely effect Market-Maker quoting.
Finally, in addition to the above general prohibitions, the proposed
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it actually provides the opportunity for a market participant to be solicited on an order when such market participant currently does not have that opportunity (the Market-Maker assigned to that option class). Furthermore, the Exchange does not believe soliciting Market-Makers will negatively impact auction responses. As noted above, the Exchange believes that an Auction with a solicited Market-Maker as contra should have no bearing on whether a competitive and interested responder will respond, nor should it have any bearing on which price that interested Market-Maker would place on his response. The Exchange also believes that exposure to an electronic auction following a solicitation encourages competition; thus, expanding the pool of available solicited parties prior to the initiation of an Auction further exposes orders to competitive Auctions and results in a higher level of potential execution quality for customers.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed change applies only to trading on CBOE. However, the opportunity for a Market-Maker to be solicited on an order in a class to which he is assigned may make CBOE a more attractive marketplace by giving more trading opportunities to Market-Makers as well as providing greater volume and liquidity, thereby enhancing competition. As such, to the extent that the proposed change makes CBOE a more attractive marketplace to market participants on other exchanges, such market participants may elect to become CBOE market participants.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 206, Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the fortieth meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 206, Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services.
The meeting will be held April 13-17, 2015, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. on Monday (EST), 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. Tuesday to Thursday and 8:30 a.m.-11 a.m. on Friday.
The meeting will be held National Institute of Aerospace (NIA), 100 Exploration Way Hampton, VA 23666.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 330-0652/(202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 206. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 222, AMS(R)S.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the nineteenth meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 222, AMS(R)S. Per RTCA PMC changes to the SC-222 Terms of Reference, this meeting will be a joint meeting with Eurocae WG-82. The SC-222 purpose will be to develop a joint work plan toward the revised Terms of Reference, and harmonize differences in deliverable items and schedule with WG-82.
The meeting will be held April 14, 2015 from 9:00 a.m.-Noon (EDT).
This meeting will be held at Eurocontrol Brussels. This meeting is expected to be largely virtual, conducted over Webex with a telephone bridge. Dr. LaBerge and Mr. Robinson will be present at RTCA. Those who plan to attend in person at the Eurocontrol offices should notify should notify the Chair of WG-82, Mr. Armin Schlereth at least seven days in advance. Please contact Armin Schlereth, DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH, SIS/DM, Am DFS Campus 7 63225 Langen. Phone: +49 6103 707 2433. Mobile: +49 172 5209 369. Fax: +49 6103 707 2490.
Jennifer Iversen may be contacted directly at email:
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 222. The agenda will include the following:
• Greetings & Attendance
• Review summary of January meeting (18th Plenary) will be accomplished by email prior to this joint meeting.
• Discussion of joint SC-222/WG-82 work program. Participants should read the information posted on the SC-222 Workspace prior to the meeting.
• Because WG-82 is the host organization, we will largely follow the WG-82 agenda, which will be posted to the workspace.
• Schedule and venue for 20th Plenary.
• Adjourn
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Department of Transportation.
Notice; request for public comments.
The purpose of this notice is to seek comment from the public and industry regarding potential plans by the United States Government to implement an enhanced Long Range Navigation (eLoran) system as a complementary positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) capability to the Global Positioning System (GPS). The positioning, navigation, and timing performance of eLoran will vary widely depending on the number of transmitters and monitor sites for corrections that are implemented.
The Department of Transportation seeks input on: (a) A brief description of your application(s) of positioning, navigation, and timing services; (b) the positioning, navigation, and/or timing performance required for a complementary PNT capability to
Submit comments on or before May 22, 2015.
You may submit comments identified by docket number [DOT-OST-2015-0053] using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
If you have questions on this notice, contact Karen L. Van Dyke, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology Administration; Director, Positioning, Navigation, and Timing and Spectrum Management, telephone 202-366-3180 or email
The United States Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing policy requires that the Department of Transportation in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, develop, acquire, operate, and maintain backup positioning, navigation, and timing capabilities that can support critical transportation, homeland security, and other critical civil and commercial infrastructure applications within the United States, in the event of a disruption of the Global Positioning System or other space-based positioning, navigation, and timing services. The United States Government is currently investigating implementation of an eLoran system to serve as a complementary PNT capability to GPS. The positioning, navigation, and timing performance of eLoran will vary widely depending on the number of transmitters and monitor sites for corrections that are implemented.
The Department of Transportation seeks input on: (a) A brief description of your application(s) of positioning, navigation, and timing services; (b) the positioning, navigation, and/or timing performance required for a complementary PNT capability during a disruption of GPS that could last for longer than a day, (c) availability and coverage area required for a complementary PNT capability, (d) willingness to equip with an eLoran receiver to reduce or prevent operational and/or economic consequences from a GPS disruption, (e) current and planned availability of e-Loran capable user equipment,(f) other non-eLoran PNT technologies or operational procedures, currently available or planned, that could be used during a disruption of GPS for longer than a day.
You may submit comments and related material regarding this notice. All comments received will be posted, without change, to
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). The IRS is soliciting comments concerning third-party disclosure requirements in IRS regulations.
Written comments should be received on or before May 22, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Christie Preston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Kerry Dennis, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce; United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Interior.
Proposed rule; 12-month petition finding; request for comments; notice of public hearing.
The green sea turtle (
Although not determinable at this time, designation of critical habitat may be prudent, and we solicit relevant information for those DPSs occurring within U.S. jurisdiction. In the interim, we propose to continue the existing critical habitat designation (
This proposed rule also constitutes the 12-month finding on a petition to reclassify the Hawaiian green turtle population as a DPS and to delist that DPS. Although we find the Hawaiian green turtle population to constitute a DPS (referred to in this proposed rule as the Central North Pacific DPS), we do not find delisting warranted.
A public hearing will be held in Hawai`i. Interested parties may provide oral or written comments at this hearing.
Comments and information regarding this proposed rule must be received by close of business on June 22, 2015. A public hearing will be held on April 8, 2015 from 6 to 8 p.m., with an informational open house starting at 5:30 p.m. Requests for additional public hearings must be made in writing and received by May 7, 2015.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0154, by the following methods:
•
1. Go to
2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields.
3. Enter or attach your comments.
•
•
Jennifer Schultz, NMFS (ph. 301-427-8443, email
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal be as accurate and effective as possible and informed by the best available scientific and commercial information. Therefore, we request comments or information from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule. We are seeking information and comments on whether each of the 11 proposed green turtle DPSs qualify as DPSs, whether listing of each DPS is warranted, and, if so, whether they should be classified as threatened or endangered as described in the “Listing Determinations Under the ESA” section provided below. Specifically, we are soliciting information on the following subjects relative to green turtles within the 11 proposed DPSs: (1) Historical and current population status and trends, (2) historical and current distribution, (3) migratory movements and behavior, (4) genetic population structure, (5) current or planned activities that may adversely affect green turtles, (6) conservation efforts to protect green turtles, and (7) our extinction risk analysis and findings. We request that all data, information, and comments be accompanied by supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications. We will consider comments and new information when making final determinations.
Though we are not proposing to designate critical habitat at this time, we request evaluations describing the quality and extent of existing habitats within U.S. jurisdiction for the proposed North Atlantic, South Atlantic (U.S. Virgin Islands), Central South Pacific (American Samoa), Central West Pacific (Commonwealth of the Northern
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires the Secretary to consider the “economic impact, impact on national security, and any other relevant impact” of designating a particular area as critical habitat. Section 4(b)(2) also authorizes the Secretary to conduct a balancing of the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of exclusion from a critical habitat designation of a particular area, and to exclude any particular area where the Secretary finds that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, unless excluding that area will result in extinction of the species. Therefore, for features and areas potentially qualifying as critical habitat, we also request information describing: (1) Activities or other threats to the essential features that could be affected by designating them as critical habitat (pursuant to section 4(b)(8) of the ESA); and (2) the positive and negative economic, national security and other relevant impacts, including benefits to the recovery of the species, likely to result if these areas are designated as critical habitat. We also seek information regarding the conservation benefits of designating areas within nesting beaches and waters under U.S. jurisdiction as critical habitat. Data sought include, but are not limited to the following: (1) Scientific or commercial publications, (2) administrative reports, maps or other graphic materials, and (3) information from experts or other interested parties. Comments and data particularly are sought concerning the following: (1) Maps and specific information describing the amount, distribution, and type of use (
The Services will hold a public hearing in Hawai‘i. Interested parties may provide oral or written comments at this hearing. A public hearing will be held on April 8, 2015 from 6 to 8 p.m., with an informational open house starting at 5:30 p.m., at the Japanese Cultural Center, 2454 South Beretania Street, Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96826. Parking is available at the Japanese Cultural Center for $5. If requested by the public by May 7, 2015, additional hearings will be held regarding the proposed listing of the green turtle DPSs. If additional hearings are requested, details regarding location(s), date(s), and time(s) will be published in a forthcoming
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon request (see
On July 28, 1978, NMFS and USFWS, collectively referred to as the Services, listed the green turtle (
On February 16, 2012, the Services received a petition from the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs to identify the Hawaiian green turtle population as a DPS and “delist” the DPS under the ESA. On August 1, 2012, NMFS, with USFWS concurrence, determined that the petition presented substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (77 FR 45571). Initiating a review of new information in accordance with the DPS policy was consistent with the recommendation made in the Services' 2007 Green Sea Turtle 5-year Review. The Services initiated a status review to consider the species across its range, determine whether the petitioned action is warranted, and determine whether other DPSs could be recognized. The Services decided to review the Hawaiian population in the context of green turtles globally with regard to application of the DPS policy and in light of significant new information since the listing of the species in 1978.
The Services appointed a Status Review Team (SRT) in September 2012. SRT members were affiliated with NMFS Science Centers and the Services' field, regional, and headquarters offices, and provided a diverse range of expertise, including green turtle genetics, demography, ecology, and management, as well as risk analysis and ESA policy. The SRT was charged with reviewing and evaluating all relevant scientific information relating to green turtle population structure globally to determine whether any populations may qualify as DPSs and, if so, to assess the extinction risk for each proposed DPS. Findings of the SRT are detailed in the “Green Turtle (
This
The ESA gives us clear authority to make these listing determinations and to revise the lists of endangered and threatened species to reflect these determinations. Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA authorizes us to determine by regulation whether “any species,” which is expressly defined to include species, subspecies, and DPS, is an endangered species or a threatened species based on certain factors. Review of the status of a species may be commenced at any time, either on the Services' own initiative—through a status review or in connection with a 5-year review under Section 4(c)(2)—or in response to a petition. Because a DPS is not a scientifically recognized entity, but rather one that is created under the language of the ESA and effectuated through our DPS Policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), we have some discretion to determine whether the species should be reclassified into DPSs and what boundaries should be recognized for each DPS. Section 4(c)(1) gives us authority to update the lists of threatened and endangered species to reflect these determinations. This can include revising the lists to remove a species or reclassify the listed entity.
Section 3 of the ESA defines “species” as including “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” The term “distinct population segment” is not recognized in the scientific literature. Therefore, the Services adopted a joint policy for recognizing DPSs under the ESA (DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722) on February 7, 1996. The DPS Policy requires the consideration of three elements when evaluating the status of possible DPSs: (1) The discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs; (2) the significance of the population segment to the species to which it belongs; and (3) the population segment's conservation status in relation to the
The ESA defines an endangered species as one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (section 3(6)), and a threatened species as one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (section 3(20)). Thus, in the context of the ESA, the Services interpret an “endangered species” to be one that is presently in danger of extinction. A “threatened species,” on the other hand, is not presently in danger of extinction, but is likely to become so in the foreseeable future. In other words, the primary statutory difference between a threatened and endangered species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction, either presently (endangered) or in the foreseeable future (threatened).
When we consider whether a species might qualify as threatened under the ESA, we must consider the meaning of the term “foreseeable future.” It is appropriate to interpret “foreseeable future” as the horizon over which predictions about the conservation status of the species can be reasonably relied upon. The foreseeable future considers the life history of the species, habitat characteristics, availability of data, particular threats, ability to predict threats, and the reliability to forecast the effects of these threats and future events on the status of the species under consideration. Because a species may be susceptible to a variety of threats for which different data are available, or which operate across different time scales, the foreseeable future is not necessarily reducible to a particular number of years. For the green turtle, the SRT used a horizon of 100 years to evaluate the likelihood that a DPS would reach a critical risk threshold (
The statute requires us to determine whether any species is endangered or threatened as a result of any one or combination of the following 5-factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (section 4(a)(1)(A-E) of the ESA). Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us to make this determination based solely on the best available scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of the species and taking into account any efforts being made by States or foreign governments to protect the species.
A thorough account of green turtle biology and life history may be found in the Status Review, which is incorporated here by reference. The following is a succinct summary of that information.
The green turtle,
Most green turtles spend the majority of their lives in coastal foraging grounds. These areas include fairly shallow waters in open coastline and protected bays and lagoons. While in these areas, green turtles rely on marine algae and seagrass as their primary diet constituents, although some populations also forage heavily on invertebrates. These marine habitats are often highly dynamic and in areas with annual fluctuations in seawater and air temperatures, which can cause the distribution and abundance of potential green turtle food items to vary substantially between seasons and years (Carballo
At nesting beaches, green turtles rely on beaches characterized by intact dune structures, native vegetation, little to no artificial lighting, and 26 to 35° C beach temperatures for nesting (Limpus, 1971; Salmon
Hatchlings emerge from their nests
Upon leaving the nesting beach and entering the marine environment, post-hatchling green turtles begin an oceanic juvenile phase during which they are presumed to primarily inhabit areas where surface waters converge to form local downwellings that result in linear accumulations of floating material, especially
Oceanic-stage juvenile green turtles originating from nesting beaches in the Northwest Atlantic appear to use oceanic developmental habitats and move with the predominant ocean gyres for several years before returning to their neritic (shallower water, generally to 200 m depth, including open coastline and protected bays and lagoons) foraging and developmental habitats (Musick and Limpus, 1997; Bolten, 2003). Larger neonate green turtles (at least 15-26 cm straight carapace length; SCL) are known to occupy
The neritic juvenile stage begins when green turtles exit the oceanic zone and enter the neritic zone (Bolten, 2003). The age at recruitment to the neritic zone likely varies with individuals leaving the oceanic zone over a wide size range (summarized in Avens and Snover, 2013). After migrating to the neritic zone, juveniles continue maturing until they reach adulthood, and some may periodically move between the neritic and oceanic zones (NMFS and USFWS, 2007; Parker
Most green turtles exhibit slow growth rates, which has been described as a consequence of their largely herbivorous (
The SRT considered a vast array of information in assessing whether there are any green turtle population segments that satisfy the DPS criteria of being both discrete and significant. In anticipation of conducting a green turtle status review, NMFS contracted two post-doctoral associates in 2011 to collect and synthesize genetic and demographic information on green turtles worldwide. The SRT was presented with, and evaluated, this genetic and demographic information. Demographic information included green turtle nesting information; morphological and behavioral data; movements, as indicated by tagging (flipper and passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags) and satellite telemetry data; and anthropogenic impacts. Also discussed and considered as a part of this analysis were oceanographic features and geographic barriers.
A population may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions: (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors; or (2) it is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). According to the policy, quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity can be used to provide evidence for item (1). The SRT compiled a list of attributes that suggested various population groups might be considered discrete, identified potentially discrete units, and discussed alternative scenarios for lumping or splitting these potentially discrete units. After arriving at a tentative list of units, each member of the SRT was given 100 points that could be distributed among two categories: (1) The unit under consideration is discrete, and (2) the unit under consideration is not discrete. The spread of points reflects the level of certainty of the SRT surrounding a decision to call the unit discrete. The SRT determined that there are 11 discrete regional populations of green turtles globally. Each of these was then evaluated for significance.
A population may be considered significant if it satisfies any one of the following conditions: (1) Persistence of the discrete segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon; (3) evidence that the discrete segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range; and (4) evidence that the discrete segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics. Because condition (3) is not applicable to green turtles, the SRT addressed conditions (1), (2) and (4). The SRT listed the attributes that would make potential DPSs (those determined to be discrete in the previous step) significant. As in the vote for discreteness, members of the SRT were then given 100 points with which to vote for whether each unit met the significance criterion in the joint policy. All units that had been identified as discrete were also determined to be significant.
For more discussion on the process the SRT used to identify DPSs, see Section 3 of the Status Review document.
In evaluating discreteness among the global green turtle population, the SRT began by focusing on the physical separation of ocean basins (
Within each ocean basin, the SRT started by evaluating genetic information. The genetic data consisted of results from studies using maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), biparentally inherited nuclear DNA (nDNA) microsatellite (a section of DNA consisting of very short nucleotide sequences repeated many times), and single nucleotide polymorphism (a DNA sequence variation occurring commonly within a population) markers. Next, the SRT reviewed tagging, telemetry and demographic data, and additional information such as potential differences in morphology. The SRT also considered whether the available information suggests that green turtle population segments are separated by vicariant barriers, such as oceanographic features (
Genetic information that was presented to the SRT resulted from a global phylogenetic analysis (analysis based on natural evolutionary relationships) based on sequence data from a total of 129 mtDNA haplotypes (
Two of the eight major mtDNA clades, Clades I and II, are found in the Atlantic/Mediterranean region. Clade I includes haplotypes primarily found in turtles from the Mediterranean and the western North Atlantic. Within Clade I, two strongly divergent groups of haplotypes are found, with one group being restricted to the Mediterranean and the other being restricted to the western North Atlantic. Mediterranean and western North Atlantic turtles share only one specific haplotype that has been found in only two individuals, indicating very strong long-term isolation of females. As such, there is strong evidence that these two geographically-separated groups of divergent haplotypes may be considered discrete.
In addition to genetic evidence for discreteness, in the Mediterranean, green turtles are spatially separated from populations in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, with the nearest known nesting sites outside the Mediterranean being several thousand kilometers away in the Republic of Senegal (Senegal), and the North Atlantic population being more than 8,000 km away. Further, no turtles tagged in the eastern Mediterranean have been recovered farther west than the Tunisian Republic (Tunisia) inside the Mediterranean. Nesting females from Cyprus, Turkey, the Syrian Arab Republic (Syria), and the State of Israel (Israel) have been satellite tracked to the Arab Republic of Egypt (Egypt), Libya, and Turkey—with movements largely restricted to the eastern Mediterranean (Godley
Demographic evidence of discreteness of Mediterranean green turtles lies in the fact that Mediterranean green turtles are the second smallest green turtles worldwide (the smallest being in the eastern Pacific), with a mean nesting size in Alagadi, Cyprus of 92 cm Curved Carapace Length (CCL; Broderick
In the North Atlantic, tag recovery and telemetry data indicate that nesting females primarily reside within the North Atlantic. Some nesting females tagged at Tortuguero, Costa Rica were recaptured in the South Atlantic (Troëng
The second clade within the Atlantic Ocean basin, Clade II, includes haplotypes found in all South Atlantic nesting sites, some eastern Caribbean turtles, and some turtles in the southwest Indian Ocean. With a few exceptions, green turtles in the South Atlantic carry an mtDNA haplotype that is found nowhere else, indicating strong isolation of matrilines over evolutionary time periods. The exceptions to this pattern are: (1) One nesting site from the eastern Caribbean, which exhibits a low frequency of a haplotype from the North Atlantic/Mediterranean clade (Clade I); (2) nesting sites from the Gulf of Mexico/Central America, which have a low frequency of Clade II haplotypes; and (3) two nesting sites from southeast Africa, which have high frequencies of Clade II haplotypes. The presence of a shared haplotype in South Atlantic and southwest Indian Ocean rookeries demonstrates for the first time a recent matrilineal link between Atlantic and Indian Ocean green turtle populations (Bourjea
Foraging ground studies in the Atlantic have generally shown regional structuring with strong stock contribution from nearby regional nesting sites, but little mixing over long distances (Bolker
In the South Atlantic, flipper tag recoveries have established movement between feeding grounds and nesting sites in the Caribbean and Brazil (Lima
Finally, demographic evidence for discreteness of South Atlantic green turtles lies in the fact that the South Atlantic is home to the largest green turtles in the world, with a mean nesting size of green turtles at Atol das Rocas, Brazil of 118.6 cm CCL (n=738), compared with 95 cm to 110 cm CCL size range for most other populations.
Based on the information presented above, the SRT concluded, and we concur, that three discrete populations exist in the Atlantic Ocean/Mediterranean: (1) North Atlantic, (2) Mediterranean, and (3) South Atlantic. These three populations are markedly separated from each other and from populations within the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean basins as a consequence of physical (including both oceanographic basins and currents), ecological, and behavioral factors. Information supporting this conclusion includes genetic analysis, flipper tag recoveries, and satellite telemetry.
Green turtles from the Indian Ocean exhibit haplotypes from Clades II, III, IV, VI, and VII. In the southwest Indian Ocean, Bourjea
In the North Indian Ocean, limited information from only a single nesting site (Jana Island, Saudi Arabia, n=27) exists on the genetic structure (M. Jensen, NRC, pers. comm., 2013). Nonetheless, four mtDNA haplotypes never reported from any other nesting site were identified from Jana Island, and are highly divergent from other haplotypes in the Indian Ocean. This population also appears to be isolated from other Indian populations by substantial breaks in nesting habitat along the Horn of Africa and along the entire eastern side of the Indian subcontinent.
Tagging of turtles on nesting beaches of the North Indian Ocean started in the late 1970s and indicates that some turtles in the North Indian Ocean migrate long distances from distant feeding grounds to nesting beaches while others are quite sedentary, but all stay within the North Indian Ocean. Tagging studies have revealed that some turtles nesting on Ras Al Hadd and Masirah, Oman can be found as far away as Somalia, Ethiopia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, the upper Gulf, and Pakistan (Ross, 1987; Salm, 1991), and a green turtle tagged in Oman was found in the Maldives (Al-Saady
A few green turtles in the North Indian Ocean have been fitted with satellite transmitters and reported at
In the eastern Indian Ocean, turtles mix readily with those in the western Pacific. Genetic sampling in the eastern Indian and western Pacific Ocean regions has been fairly extensive with more than 22 nesting sites sampled although, because there are a high number of nesting sites in this region and there is complex structure, there remain gaps in sampling relative to distribution (
Significant population substructuring occurs among nesting sites in this area. Mixed-stock analysis of foraging grounds shows that green turtles from multiple nesting beaches commonly mix at feeding areas across northern Australia (Dethmers
Given the information presented above, the SRT concluded, and we concur, that three discrete populations exist in the Indian Ocean, with the third overlapping with the Pacific: (1) Southwest Indian, (2) North Indian, and (3) East Indian-West Pacific. These three populations are markedly separated from each other and from populations within the Atlantic Ocean as a consequence of physical, ecological, and behavioral factors. Information supporting this conclusion includes genetic analysis, flipper tag recoveries, and satellite telemetry.
The central west Pacific encompasses most of the area commonly referred to as Micronesia as well as parts of Melanesia. Genetic sampling in the central west Pacific has recently improved, but remains challenging, given the large number of small island and atoll nesting sites. At least five management units have been identified in the region (Palau, Independent State of Papua New Guinea (PNG), Yap, CNMI/Guam, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (Marshall Islands); Dethmers
In the southwest Pacific, genetic sampling has been extensive for larger nesting sites along the GBR, the Coral Sea and New Caledonia (Dethmers
Traditional capture-mark-recapture studies (Limpus, 2009) and genetic mixed-stock analysis (Jensen, 2010) show that turtles from several different southwest Pacific nesting sites overlap on feeding grounds along the east coast of Australia. This mixing in foraging areas might provide mating opportunities between turtles from different stocks as evidenced by the lack of differentiation found between the northern and southern GBR nesting sites
In the central South Pacific, genetic sampling has been limited to two nesting sites (American Samoa and French Polynesia) among the many small isolated nesting sites that characterize this region, but they both contain relatively high frequencies of Clade III haplotypes, which are not found in the central west and southwest Pacific populations. Nesting sites from this area share some haplotypes with surrounding nesting sites, but at low frequency. There are also limited data on mixed-stock foraging areas from this region. Flipper tag returns and satellite tracking studies demonstrate that post-nesting females travel the complete geographic breadth of this population, from French Polynesia in the east to Fiji in the west, and sometimes even slightly beyond (Tuato'o-Bartley
The central North Pacific, which includes the Hawaiian Archipelago and Johnston Atoll, is inhabited by green turtles that are geographically discrete in their genetic characteristics, range, and movements, as evidenced by genetic studies and mark-recapture studies using flipper tags, microchip tags, and satellite telemetry. The key nesting aggregations within the Hawaiian Archipelago have all been genetically sampled. Mitochondrial DNA studies show no significant differentiation (based on haplotype frequency) between FFS and Laysan Island (P. Dutton, NMFS, pers. comm., 2013). While the Hawaiian Islands do share haplotypes with Revillagigedos Islands (CmP1.1 and CmP3.1) at low frequency, the populations remain highly differentiated, and there is little evidence of significant ongoing gene flow. The Frey
Turtles foraging in the MHI originate from Hawaiian nesting sites, with very rare records of turtles from outside the central North Pacific (Dutton
Information from tagging at FFS, areas in the MHI, the Northwest Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) to the northwest of FFS, and at Johnston Atoll shows that reproductive females and males periodically migrate to FFS for seasonal breeding from the other locations. At the end of the season they return to their respective foraging areas. The reproductive migrations of 19 satellite tracked green turtles (16 females and 3 males) all involved movements between FFS and the MHI. Conventional tagging using microchips and metal flipper tags has resulted in the documentation of 164 turtles making reproductive movements from or to FFS and foraging pastures in the MHI, and 58 turtles from or to FFS and the foraging pastures in the NWHI (G. Balazs, NMFS, unpubl. data).
Hawaiian green turtles also exhibit morphological features that may make them discrete from other populations, possibly reflecting genetic as well as ecological adaptations. In the Hawai`i population, and in Australian populations, green turtles have a well-developed crop, which has not been found in Caribbean or eastern Pacific populations of green turtles (Balazs
The central North Pacific population and those in the central South Pacific and central west Pacific appear to be separated by large oceanic areas, and the central North Pacific and the eastern Pacific populations are separated by the East Pacific Barrier, an oceanographic barrier that greatly restricts or eliminates gene flow for most marine species from a wide range of taxa (Briggs, 1974).
In the eastern Pacific, genetic sampling has been extensive and the coverage in this region is substantial, considering the relatively small population sizes of most eastern Pacific nesting sites, which include both mainland and insular nesting. This sampling indicates complete isolation of nesting females between the eastern and western Pacific nesting sites. Recent efforts to determine the nesting stock origins of green turtles assembled in foraging areas have found that green turtles from several eastern Pacific nesting stocks commonly mix at feeding areas in the Gulf of California and along the Pacific coast in San Diego Bay, U.S. (Nichols, 2003; P. Dutton, NMFS, unpubl. data). In addition, green turtles of eastern Pacific origin have been found, albeit very rarely, in waters off Hawai‘i (LeRoux
Recent nDNA studies provide insights that are consistent with patterns of differentiation found with mtDNA in the eastern Pacific. Roden
Flipper tagging and satellite telemetry data show that dispersal and reproductive migratory movements of
Satellite telemetry efforts with green turtles in the region have shown similar results to those for flipper tag recoveries. A total of 23 long-distance satellite tracks were considered for the Status Review (Seminoff, 2000; Nichols, 2003; Seminoff
Demographic evidence of discreteness is also found in morphological differences between green turtles in the eastern Pacific and those found elsewhere. The smallest green turtles worldwide are found in the eastern Pacific, where mean nesting size is 82.0 cm CCL in Michoacán, Mexico (n=718, (Alvarado-Díaz and Figueroa, 1992) and 86.7 cm CCL in the Galápagos (n=2708; (Zárate
Given the information presented above, the SRT concluded, and we concur, that there are five discrete populations entirely within the Pacific Ocean: (1) Central West Pacific, (2) Southwest Pacific, (3) Central South Pacific, (4) Central North Pacific, and (5) East Pacific. These five populations are markedly separated from each other and from populations within the Atlantic Ocean and Indian Oceans as a consequence of physical, ecological, behavioral, and oceanographic factors. Information supporting this conclusion includes genetic analysis, flipper tag recoveries, and satellite telemetry.
Collectively, all observations above led the SRT to propose that green turtles from the following geographic areas might be considered “discrete” according to criteria in the joint DPS policy:
In accordance with the DPS Policy, the SRT next reviewed whether the population segments identified in the discreteness analysis were biologically and ecologically significant to the taxon to which they belong, which is the taxonomic species
Green turtles in the North Atlantic differ markedly in their genetic characteristics from other regional populations. They are strongly divergent from the Mediterranean population (the only other population within Clade I), and turtles from adjacent populations in the eastern Caribbean carry haplotypes from a different clade. The North Atlantic population has globally unique haplotypes. Therefore, the loss of the population would result in significant genetic loss to the species as a whole.
The green turtles within the North Atlantic population occupy a large portion of one of the major ocean basins in the world; therefore, the loss of this segment would represent a significant gap in the global range of green turtles. Green turtles take advantage of the warm waters of the Gulf Stream to nest in North Carolina at 34° N., which is farther from the equator than any other nesting sites outside the Mediterranean Sea. Tagging and telemetry studies show that the North Atlantic green turtle population has minimal mixing with populations in the South Atlantic and Mediterranean regions. The mean size of nesting females in the North Atlantic, which could reflect the ecological setting and/or be genetically based, is larger (average 101.7-109.3 cm CCL; (Guzmán-Hernández, 2001, 2006) than those in the adjacent Mediterranean Sea (average 88-96 cm CCL), and smaller than those at varying locations in the South Atlantic, such as those at Isla Trindade, Brazil (average 115.2 cm CCL; Hirth, 1997; Almeida
Another factor indicating uniqueness of the North Atlantic population is a typical 2-year remigration interval, as compared to 3-year or longer intervals that are more common elsewhere (Witherington
Mediterranean turtles differ markedly in their genetic characteristics from other regional populations, with globally unique haplotypes and strong divergence from the other population within Clade I (the North Atlantic population). Therefore, the loss of the population would result in significant genetic loss to the species as a whole. Given this genetic distinctiveness and the distinctive environmental conditions, it is likely that turtles from the eastern Mediterranean have developed local adaptations that help them persist in this area. Mediterranean females are smaller than those in any other regional population except the Eastern Pacific, averaging 92.0 cm CCL (Broderick
The loss of the population would result in a significant gap in the range
Finally, the Mediterranean Sea appears to be a unique ecological setting for the species. It is the most saline marine water basin in the world (38 parts per thousand (ppt) or higher), is nearly enclosed, and is outside the normal latitudinal range for the species, being the farthest from the equator of any green turtle population. Although similar information is not available for green turtles, it has been postulated that the high salinity of sea water in the Mediterranean acts as a “barrier” preventing loggerhead sea turtles from moving among the areas of the Western Mediterranean, explaining why they do not mix between the north and south Mediterranean as juveniles (Revelles
The South Atlantic population has globally unique haplotypes. Therefore, the loss of the population would result in significant genetic loss to the species as a whole. The South Atlantic population contains the only nesting site in the world associated with a mid-ocean ridge. This unique ecological setting at Ascension Island, one of the largest nesting sites within this population, ensures diverse nesting habitats and promotes resilience for the species. This population spans an entire hemispheric ocean basin, and its loss would result in a gap of at least 12,000 km between populations off southeast Africa and those in Florida, clearly a significant gap in the range of the taxon. Brazil and Guinea Bissau may have acted as a refuge for Atlantic green turtles during the Pleistocene period (Reece
Within the Southwest Indian Ocean, strong upwelling in the Mozambique Channel produces distinctive areas of high productivity that support a robust turtle population, and complex current patterns in the area create a distinctive ecological setting for green turtles. Madagascar is one of the largest islands in the world and its proximity to the African coast, along with a proliferation of nearby islands, creates a complex series of habitats suitable for green turtles. Loss of this population would leave a gap of over 10,000 km between populations in southern India and those in west-central Africa. Nesting turtles from this population are the largest within the Indian Ocean, ranging from 103 cm (SCL)-112.3 cm (CCL) (Frazier, 1971; 1985) which could reflect growth due to presence of a network of foraging areas and localize migratory movements.
The ecological setting for this region is unique for green turtles in that it contains some of the warmest and highly saline waters in the world, indicative of the partially enclosed marine habitats within this system. The salinity in the North Indian Ocean varies from 32 to 37 ppt comparable only to the Mediterranean Sea. Salinity in this region varies with local and seasonal differences particularly in the Arabian Sea (dense, high-salinity) and the Bay of Bengal (low-salinity). Although genetic data are very limited for this population, with the only sample being from the Persian Gulf, it has two groups of highly divergent haplotypes that are not found anywhere else in the world (
This area of complex habitats at the confluence of the tropical Indian and Pacific Oceans is a well-known hotspot for speciation and diversification of both terrestrial and marine taxa. It is unique in that it contains the most extensive continental shelf globally, and particularly low salinity waters in the northeastern Indian Ocean. Loss of green turtles from this vast area would create a substantial gap in the global distribution and, because this population is located at the center of the species' range, would strongly affect connectivity within the species as a whole. Connectivity is important for the maintenance of genetic diversity and resilience of the species. Genetic data indicate the presence of ancestral haplotypes with significant mtDNA diversity. The loss of this population, and its ancestral haplotypes, would represent a significant genetic loss to the species. The wide size range of nesting females within this population (82.1 cm-105.6 cm; Charuchinda and Monanunsap, 1998; Cheng, 2000) is also an indication of the high level of diversity within this population.
The Central West Pacific population is genetically significant in that it has both globally unique haplotypes and ancestral haplotypes. The Central West Pacific has no continental shelf habitats, with all nesting occurring on small islands or atolls that are volcanic or coralline limestone. There is an apparent oceanic boundary between the Central West Pacific and the Central North Pacific population and an apparent biogeographic boundary between the Central West Pacific and the East Indian-West Pacific population. Loss of turtles from this population would create a large gap near the center of the geographic range of the species.
Clade V haplotypes have only been found at nesting sites in the Southwest Pacific population. In addition to these globally unique haplotypes, the presence of the ancestral haplotypes and significant mtDNA diversity make this population genetically significant.
Unlike most other populations in the Pacific Ocean, this population includes island nesting sites in close proximity to coastal foraging areas. The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is the largest coral reef system in the world and was periodically isolated over geological time. It provides expansive, year-round foraging habitat for green turtles and supports one of the largest nesting sites in the world.
This population has globally unique haplotypes. Therefore, the loss of the population would result in significant genetic loss to the species as a whole. To a greater extent than in any other regional population, nesting sites are widely dispersed among a large number of small habitats on islands and atolls. Foraging areas are mostly coral reef ecosystems, with seagrass beds in Tonga and Fiji being a notable exception.
Mitochondrial DNA in this extensively sampled region includes globally unique haplotypes. Although two haplotypes are shared with individuals in the Revillagigedos Islands in the East Pacific, there is little evidence of significant ongoing gene flow. The loss of this population would result in significant genetic loss to the species as a whole.
This population has no continental-shelf habitat and all nesting occurs on mid-basin pinnacles. Turtles in this population are known to bask, a rare behavior for modern-day sea turtles, and have unique morphological traits such as unusually large flippers, possibly reflecting adaptations to their ecological setting. This is the most isolated of all populations, with an apparent biogeographic boundary with the Eastern Pacific population and oceanic boundaries with the Central West and Central South Pacific populations. If all turtles were lost from this vast geographic area, it would create a significant gap in the global range of the species.
The two cold-water currents on the east side of the Pacific Ocean (the Humboldt Current in the south and the California Current in the north) leave a distinctive region of tropical ocean along the west coasts of Mexico, Central America, and northern South America that is known as the Eastern Pacific Zoogeographic Region (Briggs, 1974). Perhaps as a result, some turtles in this area exhibit a unique overwintering behavior similar to hibernation. This area also has a very narrow continental shelf and low levels of seagrass, resulting in a unique diet for green turtles (
In summary, the 11 discrete populations identified in the Discreteness Determination section were also determined to be significant to the species,
Based on the information provided in the Discreteness Determination and Significance Determination sections above, the SRT identified the following 11 potential green turtle DPSs (Figure 2): (1) North Atlantic, (2) Mediterranean, (3) South Atlantic, (4) Southwest Indian, (5) North Indian, (6) East Indian-West Pacific, (7) Central West Pacific, (8) Southwest Pacific, (9) Central South Pacific, (10) Central North Pacific, and (11) East Pacific. We concur with the findings of the SRT and conclude that the 11 potential DPSs identified by the SRT warrant delineation as DPSs.
In these sections, we describe the geographic range of each DPS. We discuss its population parameters, which are derived from population data and influence the persistence of the DPS. These population parameters include: Abundance, growth rates or trends, spatial structure, and diversity or resilience (McElhany
Complete population abundance and trend estimates do not exist for any of the 11 DPSs. The data used in the Status Review and summarized here represent the best scientific information available. The data are more robust for some areas than for others. For each DPS, the primary data available are collected on nesting beaches, either as counts of nests or counts of nesting females, or a combination of both (either direct or extrapolated). Information on abundance and trends away from the nesting beaches is limited and often non-existent, primarily because these data are, relative to nesting beach studies, logistically difficult and expensive to obtain. Therefore, the primary and best available information source for directly evaluating status and trends of the DPSs is nesting data.
Nesting female abundance estimates for each nesting site or nesting beach are presented in the Status Review for each potential DPS. Accompanying this information is trend information in the form of bar plots and Population Viability Analysis (PVA) models extending 100 years into the future for the 33 sites that met the criteria for depicting the data this way,
With regard to spatial structure, the SRT used information from genetic, tagging, telemetry, and demographic data to identify structuring and substructuring within each DPS. This informed the SRT of metapopulation dynamics in order that it might consider these dynamics in considerations about the future of the species, including whether source populations and genetic diversity are being maintained.
With regard to diversity and resilience, the SRT considered the extent of ecological variation, including the overall nesting spatial range, diversity in nesting season, and diversity of nesting site structure and orientation,
Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth procedures for adding species to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Species. Under section 4(a) of the ESA, the Services must determine whether a species is threatened or endangered because of any of the following 5 factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
In this rulemaking, information regarding the status of each of the 11 green turtle DPSs is considered in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. That information presented here is a summary of the information in the Status Review. The reader is directed to the subsection within each DPS section of the Status Review titled “Analysis of Factors Listed Under ESA Section 4(a)(1)” for a more detailed discussion of the factors.
In evaluating the efficacy of protective efforts not yet implemented or not yet proven to be effective, we rely on the Policy on Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (“PECE”; 68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003), issued jointly by the Services. Information on conservation efforts for each DPS is summarized from the Status Review. For a more detailed description of conservation efforts, please see that document. When assessing conservation efforts, the SRT assumed that all conservation efforts would remain in place at their current levels. In our final determinations, we considered the conservation benefits of continued protections under the ESA.
To analyze the extinction risk of each DPS, the SRT collected and presented information on the six critical assessment elements: (1) Abundance, (2) growth rates/trends, (3) spatial structure, (4) diversity/resilience, (5) five factor analysis/threats, and (6) conservation efforts. Shortly after each presentation, the SRT voted twice: A vote on the contribution of each critical assessment element to extinction risk, and a vote on the overall risk of extinction to the DPS (see section 3.3.4 of the Status Review for a more detailed discussion of this process).
In the first vote, SRT members ranked the importance of each of the four population parameters (Abundance, Trends, Spatial Structure, Diversity/Resilience) by assigning them a value from 1 to 5 for each DPS, with 1 indicating a very low risk and 5 indicating a very high risk. SRT members then ranked the influence of the section 4(a)(1) factors (threats) on the status of each DPS by assigning a value of 0 (neutral effect on status—this could mean that threats are not sufficient to appreciably affect the status of the DPS, or that threats are already reflected in the population parameters), -1 (threats described in the 5-factor analysis suggest that the DPS will experience some decline (<5 percent decline) in abundance within 100 years), or -2 (threats described in the 5-factor analysis suggest that the DPS will experience significant decline (≥5 percent decline) in abundance within 100 years). They then ranked the influence of conservation efforts on the status of each DPS by assigning a value of 0 (neutral effect on status—this could mean that conservation efforts are not sufficient to appreciably affect the status of the DPS, or that conservation efforts are already reflected in the population parameters), +1 (activities described in Conservation Efforts suggest that the DPS will experience <5 percent increase in abundance within 100 years), or +2 (activities described in Conservation Efforts suggest that the DPS will experience ≥5 percent increase in
In the second vote, SRT members provided their expert opinion (via vote) on the likelihood that each DPS would reach a critical risk threshold (quasi-extinction) within 100 years. In the Status Review, the SRT defined the critical risk threshold (quasi-extinction) as follows: “A DPS that has reached a critical risk threshold has such low abundance, declining trends, limited distribution or diversity, and/or significant threats (untempered by significant conservation efforts) that the DPS would be at very high risk of extinction with little chance for recovery.” Generally, DPSs were considered to have higher viability if they were composed of a number of relatively large populations, distributed throughout the geographic range of the DPS, and exhibited stable or increasing growth rates. DPSs were considered to be at higher risk if they were composed of fewer robust populations or with robust populations all concentrated in a small geographic area, where they might be susceptible to correlated catastrophes. Any DPS with low phenotypic and/or habitat diversity were also considered to be at higher risk because the entire DPS could be vulnerable to persistent environmental conditions (Limpus and Nicholls, 2000; Saba
Each member was given 100 points to spread across risk categories, reflecting their interpretation of the information for that DPS; the voting results are available in the Status Review. The spread of points is meant to reflect the amount of uncertainty in the risk threshold bins. Risk categories were <1 percent, 1-5 percent, 6-10 percent, 11-20 percent, 21-50 percent, and >50 percent. We note that, presumably because this species is such a long-lived species and, as such, it is unlikely that it would go extinct within 100 years even if it was lost in many places, every DPS received numerous points in the <1 percent category, including those with the most depressed numbers and that face the highest threats.
As noted above, the SRT estimated the likelihood that a population would fall below a critical risk threshold within 100 years. The SRT did not define the critical risk threshold quantitatively but instead provided the following definition: “A DPS that has reached a critical risk threshold has such low abundance, declining trends, limited distribution or diversity, and/or significant threats (untempered by significant conservation efforts) that the DPS would be at very high risk of extinction with little chance for recovery.”
While the SRT's review of the DPSs' statuses was rigorous and extensive, the framework used does not allow us to easily or clearly translate a particular critical risk category to an ESA listing status. Structured expert opinion is a valid and commonly used method of evaluating extinction risk and forms a useful starting point for our analysis. However, in our judgment, the critical risk threshold approach used for this status review does not directly correlate with the ESA's definitions of endangered and threatened. The ESA defines an “endangered species” as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The critical risk threshold, as defined by the SRT, is a condition worse than endangered, because it essentially precludes recovery. Thus, while the SRT votes informed our listing determinations, we did not equate a particular critical risk category with an ESA listing status, and therefore the votes were not the basis for those determinations. However, to make our proposed listing determinations, we applied the best available science that was compiled by the SRT in examining the definitions of endangered and threatened species under section 3 of the ESA.
After considering the extinction risk, the Services then reviewed the present threats and threats anticipated in the foreseeable future for each DPS. We examined the significant threats to each DPS, how these threats affected that DPS, and how they were predicted to affect the DPS in the foreseeable future. Our analysis weighed each factor within the scope of the ESA's definitions of threatened and endangered for each DPS.
Among other things, the Services also carefully considered where current conditions or protections are present specifically because green turtles are listed under the ESA, and whether those conditions would likely exist absent such a listing. We note that the latter was not considered by the SRT, meaning the SRT conducted all risk analyses assuming all protections would remain in place.
The range of the North Atlantic DPS extends from the boundary of South and Central America north along the coast to the northern extent of the green turtle's range to include Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Belize, Mexico, and the United States. It then extends due east across the Atlantic Ocean at 48° N.; follows the coast south to include the northern portion of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania (Mauritania; to 19° N.) on the African continent; and west along the 19° N. latitude to the Caribbean basin, turning south and west at 63.5° W., 19° N., and due south at 7.5° N., 77° W. to the boundary of South and Central to include Puerto Rico, the Bahamas, Cuba, Turks and Caicos Islands, Republic of Haiti (Haiti), Dominican Republic, Cayman Islands, and Jamaica. The North Atlantic DPS includes the Florida breeding population, which was originally listed as endangered (43 FR 32800, July 28, 1978). Critical habitat was previously designated for areas within the range of this DPS (
Green turtle nesting sites in the North Atlantic are some of the most studied in the world, with time series exceeding 40 years in Costa Rica and 35 years in Florida. Seventy-three nesting sites were identified within the North Atlantic DPS, although some represent numerous individual beaches. For instance, Florida nesting beaches were listed by county with the numerous beaches in each county representing one site and, for other U.S. beaches (from Texas to North Carolina), each state's nesting beaches were represented as one site. There are four regions that support high density nesting concentrations for which data were available: Tortuguero, Costa Rica; Mexico (Campeche, Yucatan, and Quintana Roo); Florida, United States; and Cuba. There is one nesting site with >100,000 nesting females (Tortuguero at 131,751; Chaloupka
Of the nesting sites with long-term data sets, both Tortuguero and the index beaches in Florida exhibit a strong positive trend in the PVAs that were conducted on them, as does Isla Aguada, Mexico (one beach in the Campeche group). Three beaches in Cuba (total of 489 nesting females) either showed no trend or a modest positive trend. One beach in Mexico (El Cuyo, Yucatan) exhibited no trend.
Genetic sampling in the North Atlantic DPS has been generally extensive with good coverage of large populations in this region; however, some smaller Caribbean nesting sites are absent and coastal nesting sites in the Gulf of Mexico are under-represented. Genetic differentiation based on mtDNA indicated that there are at least four independent nesting subpopulations in the North Atlantic DPS characterized by shallow regional substructuring: (1) Florida (Hutchinson Island; Lahanas
Green turtles nest on both continental and island beaches throughout the range of the DPS (Witherington
Within the range of the North Atlantic DPS, nesting beaches continue to be degraded from a variety of activities. Destruction and modification of green turtle nesting habitat results from coastal development, coastal armoring, beachfront lighting, erosion, sand extraction, and vehicle and pedestrian traffic on nesting beaches (Witherington and Bjorndal, 1991; Witherington, 1992; Witherington
Green turtles in the post-hatchling and early-juvenile stages are closely associated with
In Cuba, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, and Panama, water quality is also affected by sewage and industrial and agricultural runoff. Pollution remains a major threat in the waters of Jamaica. Major sources of pollution are industrial and agricultural effluent, garbage dumps and solid waste, and household sewage (Greenway, 1977; Green and Webber, 2003).
Nearshore foraging habitats such as seagrass beds are affected by propeller scarring, anchor damage, dredging, sand mining, and marina construction throughout the range of the DPS (Smith
The SRT found, and we concur, that the North Atlantic DPS of the green turtle is negatively affected by ongoing changes in both its terrestrial and marine habitats as a result of land and water use practices as considered above in Factor A. The increasing threats to the terrestrial and marine habitats are not reflected in the current trend for the North Atlantic DPS, as it was based on nesting numbers and not on all current life stages. These increasing threats to the population will become apparent when those life stages affected by the threats return to nest, as the trend information is based solely on numbers of nests. This lag time was considered in our analysis. For example, a threat that affects the oceanic juvenile phase would not be detected until those turtles return to nest, approximately 15 to 20 years later. The SRT also found, and we concur, that coastal development, beachfront lighting, erosion, sand extraction, and sea level rise increasingly impact nesting beaches of
A partial list of the countries within the range of the North Atlantic DPS where ongoing intentional capture of green turtles occurs, includes Costa Rica (Mangel and Troëng, 2001; Gonzalez Prieto and Harrison, 2012), Mexico (Seminoff, 2000; Gardner and Nichols, 2001; Dirado
The commercial artisanal green turtle fishery in Nicaragua continues to be a threat to the Tortuguero nesting population, the largest remaining green turtle population in the Atlantic (Campbell and Lagueux, 2005). Local demand for turtle meat in coastal communities continues (Garland and Carthy, 2010). There is a legal turtle fishery on the Caribbean coast that is located in the most important developmental and foraging habitat for Caribbean green turtles (Fleming, 2001; Campbell and Lagueux, 2005). The hunting of juvenile and adult turtles continues both legally and illegally in many foraging areas where green turtles originating from Florida nesting beaches are known to occur (Chacón, 2002; Fleming, 2001).
Direct take of eggs is also an ongoing threat in Panama (Evans and Vargas, 1998). Green turtles nesting on Belize's beaches and foraging along its coast are harvested in the Robinson Point area and sold in markets and restaurants (Searle, 2003). Large numbers of green turtles are captured in the area southeast of Belize, an area which may be an important migratory corridor (Searle, 2004). There are important feeding grounds in the Banc d'Arguin, Mauritania. While the frequency of green turtle nesting in Mauritania is not known, green turtle nests are reported as being harvested there (Fretey, 2001; Fretey and Hama, 2012).
Commercial harvest of green turtles was a factor that contributed to the historic decline of this DPS. Current harvest of green turtles and eggs, in a portion of this DPS, continues to be significant threat to the persistence of this DPS.
Fibropapillomatosis (FP) has been found in green turtle populations in the United States (Hirama, 2001; Ene
FP continues to be a major problem in some lagoon systems and along the nearshore reefs of Florida. It is a chronic, often lethal disease occurring predominantly in green turtles (Van Houtan
Harmful algal blooms, such as a red tide, also affect green turtles in the North Atlantic DPS. In Florida, the species that causes most red tides is
Predators such as raccoons (
Although FP disease is of major concern, with increasing levels in some green turtle populations in this DPS, it should be noted there is uncertainty of the long-term survivability and effect on the reproductive effort of the population. Predation is known to occur throughout this DPS, and we find it to be a significant threat to this DPS in the absence of well managed nest protection programs.
At least 15 regulatory mechanisms that apply to green turtles regionally (
In the United States, regulatory mechanisms that protect green turtles are in place and include State, Federal, and international laws. The green turtle was listed under the ESA in 1978, providing relatively comprehensive protection and recovery activities to minimize the threats to green turtles in the United States. Considering the dependence of the species on conservation efforts, significant concerns remain regarding the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms. The development and implementation of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) in the shrimp trawl fishery was likely the most significant conservation accomplishment for North Atlantic green turtles in the marine environment since their 1978 ESA listing. In the southeast United States and Gulf of Mexico, TEDs have been mandatory in shrimp and flounder trawls for over a decade. These regulations are implemented and enforced to varying degrees throughout the Gulf and U.S. Southeast Atlantic. For example, the State of Louisiana prohibits enforcement of TED regulations and tow time limits. In other States, enforcement of TED regulations depends on available
Other threats, such as light pollution on nesting beaches, marine debris, vessel strikes, and continued direct harvest of green turtles in places like Nicaragua, are being addressed to some extent by regulatory mechanisms, although they remain a problem. In addition, other regional and national legislation to conserve green turtles (often all sea turtles) exists throughout the range of the DPS. The extent to which threats have been reduced as a result of these efforts is difficult to ascertain. When the SRT assessed conservation efforts, it assumed that all conservation efforts would remain in place at their current levels. The following countries have laws to protect green turtles: The Bahamas, Belize, Bermuda, Canary Islands, Cayman Islands, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mauritania, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, and the United States (including the commonwealth of Puerto Rico).
With regard to the United States, the key law currently protecting green turtles is the ESA. This law has been instrumental in conserving sea turtles, eliminating directed take of turtles in U.S. waters unless authorized by permit and reducing indirect take. In addition, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act has been effective at mandating responsible fishing practices and bycatch mitigation within fleets that sell fisheries products to the United States, and the Marine Turtle Conservation Act authorizes a dedicated fund to support marine turtle conservation projects in foreign countries, with emphasis on protecting nesting populations and nesting habitat. In addition, at least 12 international treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms apply to the conservation of green turtles in the North Atlantic DPS.
Outside of the United States, there are some national regulations that address the harvest of green turtles as well as the import and export of turtle parts. These regulations allow for the harvest of green turtles of certain sizes, months, or for “traditional” use. Gear restrictions and TED requirements exist in a few countries, although the compliance level is unknown. Our Status Review did not reveal regulatory mechanisms in place to specifically address marine pollution, sea level rise, and other effects of climate change that continue to contribute to the extinction risk of this DPS.
Fisheries bycatch in artisanal and industrial fishing gear continues to be a major threat to green turtles in the North Atlantic DPS. The adverse impacts of bycatch on sea turtles has been documented in marine environments throughout the world (National Research Council, 1990b; Epperly, 2003; Lutcavage
Gill net fisheries may be the most ubiquitous of fisheries operating in the neritic range of the North Atlantic DPS. In the United States, some states (
The development and implementation of TEDs in the U.S. shrimp trawl fishery was likely the most significant conservation accomplishment for North Atlantic green turtles in the marine environment since their 1978 ESA listing. In the southeast United States and Gulf of Mexico, TEDs have been mandatory in shrimp and flounder trawls for over a decade. However, compliance varies throughout the States, and green turtle mortality continues in the Gulf of Mexico, where shrimp trawling is the highest (Lewison
Dredge fishing gear is the predominant gear used to harvest sea scallops off the mid- and northeastern U.S. Atlantic coast. Sea scallop dredges are composed of a heavy steel frame and cutting bar located on the bottom part of the frame and a bag made of metal rings and mesh twine attached to the frame. Turtles can be struck and injured or killed by the dredge frame and/or captured in the bag, where they may drown or be further injured or killed when the catch and heavy gear are dumped on the vessel deck.
In addition to the destruction or degradation of habitat as described in Factor A above, periodic dredging of sediments from navigational channels can also result in incidental mortality of sea turtles. Direct injury or mortality of green turtles by dredges has been well documented in the southeastern and mid-Atlantic U.S. (National Research Council, 1990b). From 1980 to 2013, 105 green turtles were impacted as a result of dredging operations in the U.S Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Solutions, including modification of dredges, have been successfully implemented to reduce mortalities and injuries to sea turtles in the United States (73 FR 18984, April 8, 2008; 77 FR 20728, April 6, 2012), and NMFS imposes annual take limits based on the expected number of green turtles impacted that will not, directly or indirectly, appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the green turtle in the wild.
Boat strikes have been shown to be a major mortality source in Florida (Singel
While sea turtles have survived past eras that have included significant temperature fluctuations, future climate change is expected to happen at unprecedented rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly, they may face local to widespread extirpations (Hawkes
Periodic hurricanes and other weather events are generally localized and rarely result in whole-scale losses over multiple nesting seasons. However, storm intensity and frequency are predicted to increase as a result of climate change (Melillo
Cold stunning is the hypothermic reaction that occurs when sea turtles are exposed to prolonged cold water temperatures. Cold stunning of green turtles regularly occurs at several locations in the United States, including Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts (Still
Several activities associated with offshore oil and gas production, including oil spills, operational discharge, seismic surveys, explosive platform removal, platform lighting, and drilling and production activities, are known to affect sea turtles (National Research Council, 1996; Davis
Green turtles are affected by anthropogenic marine debris (including discarded fishing gear) and plastics throughout the North Atlantic DPS. Juvenile green turtles in pelagic waters are particularly susceptible to these effects as they feed on Sargassum in which there is a high occurrence of debris (Wabnitz and Nichols, 2010; Witherington
In the North Atlantic, nest protection efforts have been implemented on two major green turtle nesting beaches, Tortuguero National Park in Costa Rica and Florida, and progress has been made in reducing mortality from human-related impacts on other nesting beaches. Tortuguero National Park was established in 1976 to protect the nesting turtles and habitat at this nesting beach, which is by far the largest in the DPS and the western hemisphere. Since that time, the harvest of nesting turtles on the beach has been reduced by an order of magnitude (Bjorndal
In Florida, a key effort was the acquisition of the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge in Florida in 1991 by Federal, State, Brevard and Indian River counties, and a non-governmental organization, where nesting densities range from 36 nests/km (22 nests/mi) to 262 nests/km (419 nests/mi) (D. Bagley, University of Central Florida, pers. comm., 2014; K. Kneifl, USFWS, pers. comm., 2014). Over 60 percent of the available beachfront acquisitions for the Refuge have been completed as the result of a multi-agency land acquisition effort. In addition, Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge, as well as coastal national seashores such as the Dry Tortugas National Park and Canaveral National Seashore, military installations such as Patrick Air Force Base and Canaveral Air Force Station, and State parks where green turtles regularly nest, provide protection for nesting turtles. However, despite these efforts, alteration of the coastline continues and, outside of publicly-owned lands,
Considerable effort has been expended since the 1980s to document and reduce commercial fishing bycatch mortality. In the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, measures (such as gear modifications, changes to fishing practices, and time/area closures) are required to reduce sea turtle bycatch in pelagic longline, mid-Atlantic gill net, Virginia pound net, scallop dredge, and southeast shrimp and flounder trawl fisheries. However, enforcement of regulations depends on available resources, and bycatch continues to contribute to mortality. Since 1989, the United States has prohibited the importation of shrimp harvested in a manner that adversely affects sea turtles.
As a result of conservation efforts, many of the intentional impacts directed at sea turtles have been lessened. For example, harvest of eggs and adults has been reduced at several nesting areas, including Tortuguero, and an increasing number of community-based initiatives are in place to reduce the take of turtles in foraging areas. However, despite these advances, human impacts continue throughout the North Atlantic. The lack of effective monitoring in pelagic and near-shore fisheries operations still allows substantial direct and indirect mortality, and the uncontrolled development of coastal and marine habitats threatens to destroy the supporting ecosystems of long-lived green turtles.
In the North Atlantic DPS, there are several regions that support high density nesting concentrations, including possibly the largest in the world at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Green turtle nesting population trends have been encouraging, exhibiting long-term increases at all major nesting sites, including Tortuguero (Troëng, 1998; Campbell and Lagueux, 2005; Troëng and Rankin, 2005) and Florida (Chaloupka
On nesting beaches, many portions of the DPS continue to be exposed to, and are negatively impacted by, coastal development and associated beachfront lighting, coastal armoring, and erosion as described in Factor A above. Impacts from such development are further exacerbated by existing and planned shoreline development and shoreline engineering. The current and anticipated increase in armored shoreline along high density nesting beaches, particularly in Florida, is a substantial unresolved threat to the recovery and stability of this DPS as it will result in the permanent loss of nesting habitat.
Nests and hatchlings are susceptible to predation which is prevalent throughout the beaches within the range of the North Atlantic DPS. Predation would be an increasing threat without nest protection and predatory control programs in place.
Nesting beaches are also extremely susceptible to sea level rise, which will exacerbate some of the issues described above in addition to leading to the potential loss of nesting beaches. Along the southeastern United States, one climate change model predicted a 1-meter sea level rise by 2060, resulting in the inundation of more than 50 percent of coastal wildlife refuges (Flaxman and Vargas-Moreno, 2011). Green turtle nesting in Florida is concentrated along coastal wildlife refuges in southern Florida such as Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge and the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge, with more than 90 percent of nesting occurring along southeast Florida. This increase in sea level will result in the permanent loss of current green turtle nesting habitat. Loss of beach is expected to be worse as a result of the increase in hurricane frequency and intensity (Flaxman and Vargas-Moreno, 2011). The increasing threat of coastal erosion due to climate change and sea level rise is expected to be exacerbated by increasing human-induced pressures on coastal areas (IPCC, 2007).
In the water, fisheries bycatch, habitat degradation, direct harvest, and FP are major threats to green turtles in the North Atlantic DPS. Artisanal and industrial fishing gear, including drift nets, set nets, pound nets, and trawls, still cause substantial direct and indirect mortality of green turtles (NMFS and USFWS, 2007). In addition, degradation and loss of foraging habitat due to pollution, including agricultural and residential runoff, anchor damage, dredging, channelization, and marina construction remains a threat to both juvenile and adult green turtles. Many green turtles in this DPS remain susceptible to direct harvesting. Current legal and illegal harvest of green turtles and eggs for human consumption continues in the eastern Atlantic and the Caribbean. A remaining threat is the directed harvest of turtles in Nicaragua that nest at Tortuguero and thus belong to the largest and arguably the most important population within the DPS (although this population continues to increase in spite of the harvest). However, potential degradation or loss of other, smaller populations is also of concern, as these contribute to the diversity and resilience of the DPS. Finally, the prevalence of FP has reached epidemic proportions in some parts of the North Atlantic DPS. The extent to which this will affect the long-term outlook for green turtles in the North Atlantic DPS is unknown. Nesting trends across the DPS continue to increase despite the high incidence of the disease.
While the Status Review indicates that the DPS shows strength in many of the critical population parameters (abundance, population trends, spatial structure, and diversity/resilience), as indicated above, numerous threats continue to act on the DPS, including habitat degradation (coastal development and armoring, loss of foraging habitat, and pollution), bycatch in fishing gear, continued turtle and egg harvesting, FP, and climate change. Importantly, the analysis of threats in the Status Review was conducted assuming current management regimes would continue.
Many of the gains made by the species over the past few decades are a direct result of ESA protections in the United States, as well as protections by U.S. States and local jurisdictions and other countries within the DPS range that are influenced by the species' ESA status.
Because the green turtle is currently listed under the ESA, take can only be authorized in the United States through the processes provided in sections 7 and 10 of the ESA and their implementing regulations. In the southeastern United States, threats to nesting beaches and nearshore waters include: Sand placement on nesting beaches and associated impacts to nearshore hardbottom habitat; groin, jetty and dock construction; and other activities. Any such activities that are currently funded, permitted and/or authorized by Federal agencies are subject to consultation with USFWS and NMFS,
This DPS has exhibited increases at major nesting sites, and has several stronghold populations. Green turtles in the U.S. Atlantic have increased steadily since being protected by the ESA (Suckling
For the above reasons, we propose to list the North Atlantic DPS as threatened. We do not find the DPS to be in danger of extinction presently because of the increasing nesting population trends and geographically widespread nesting at a diversity of sites; however, continued threats are likely to endanger the DPS within the foreseeable future.
The Mediterranean Sea is a virtually enclosed basin occupying an area of approximately 2.5 million square kilometers. The Mediterranean DPS is bounded by the entire coastline of the Mediterranean Sea, excluding the Black Sea. The westernmost border of the range of this DPS is marked by the Strait of Gibraltar (Figure 2).
Nesting in the Mediterranean occurs mostly in the eastern Mediterranean, with three nesting concentrations in Turkey, Cyprus, and Syria. Currently, approximately 452 to 2,051 nests are laid in the Mediterranean each year—about 70 percent in Turkey, 15 percent in Cyprus, and 15 percent in Syria, with trace nesting in Israel, Egypt, the Hellenic Republic (Greece), and Lebanon (Kasparek
There are seven sites for which 10 years or more of recent data are available for annual nesting female abundance (a criterion for presenting trends in a bar graph). Of these, only one site—West Coast, Cyprus—met our standards for conducting a PVA. Of the seven sites, five appeared to be increasing, although some only slightly, and two had no apparent trend. However, while the Mediterranean DPS appears to be stable or increasing, it is severely depleted relative to historical levels. This dynamic is particularly apparent along the coast of Palestine/Israel, where 300-350 nests were deposited each year in the 1950s (Sella, 1995) compared to a mean of eight nests each year from 1993 to 2008 (Casale and Margaritoulis, 2010).
With regard to spatial structure, genetic sampling in the Mediterranean has been extensive and the coverage in this region is substantial. Within the Mediterranean, rookeries are characterized by one dominant haplotype CM-A13 and a recent study showed no population substructuring between several rookeries in Cyprus and Turkey (Bagda
With regard to diversity and resilience, the overall spatial range of the DPS is limited. Green turtle nesting is found primarily in the eastern Mediterranean (Turkey, Syria, Cyprus, Lebanon, Israel, and Egypt: Kasparek
In the Mediterranean, destruction and modification of green turtle nesting habitat result from coastal development and construction, beachfront lighting, sand extraction, beach erosion, vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and beach pollution (Kasparek
Nesting beaches in the eastern Mediterranean are exposed to high levels of pollution and marine debris, in particular the beaches of Cyprus, Turkey, and Egypt (Camiñas, 2004). In Turkey, marine debris washing ashore is a substantial problem and has degraded nesting beaches, especially Akyatan and Samandağ beaches. In Syria, Jony and Rees (2008) reported that beaches contain a large amount of plastic litter that washes ashore or is blown in from dumps located in the beach dunes; this litter has been documented as accumulating in such large amounts that it can hinder nesting females from locating suitable nesting sites and cause emergent hatchlings to have difficulty crawling to the sea (Rees
Dynamite fishing and boat anchors affect green turtles and their habitat in the Mediterranean. Khalil
Because the Mediterranean is an enclosed sea, organic and inorganic wastes, toxic effluents, and other pollutants rapidly affect the ecosystem (Camiñas, 2004). The Mediterranean has been declared a “special area” by the MARPOL Convention (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships), in which deliberate petroleum discharges from vessels are banned, but numerous repeated offenses are still thought to occur (Pavlakis
Overutilization for commercial purposes likely was a factor that contributed to the historical declines of this DPS. Egg collection and turtle harvest for individual consumption still occurs in Egypt (Clarke
Nest and hatchling predation likely was a factor that contributed to the historical decline of the Mediterranean DPS. There have been no records of FP or other diseases in green turtles in this DPS. In this DPS, green turtle eggs and hatchlings are subject to depredation by wild canids (
There are at least 13 international treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms that pertain to the Mediterranean, and nearly all countries lining the Mediterranean have some level of national legislation directed at sea turtle protection. The SRT analysis of these existing regulatory mechanisms assumed that all would remain in place at their current levels.
Regulatory mechanisms are in place throughout the range of the DPS that address the direct capture of green turtles for most of the countries within this DPS. Most Mediterranean countries have developed national legislation to protect sea turtles and nesting habitats (Casale and Margaritoulis, 2010). The following countries have laws to protect green turtles: Albania, Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, and Turkey. In addition, at least 13 international treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms apply to the conservation of green turtles in the Mediterranean DPS. National protective legislation generally prohibits intentional killing, harassment, possession, trade, or attempts at these (Margaritoulis
In western Cyprus, Lara-Toxeftra beaches have been afforded protection through the Fisheries Law and Regulations since 1989 (Margaritoulis, 2007). In northern Cyprus, four beaches (Alagadi Beach, Karpaz Peninsular, South Karpaz, and Akdeniz) have been designated as Special Protected Areas (Fuller
Regulatory mechanisms are not in place in many countries within this DPS to address the major threat of sea turtle bycatch. Some of the countries in which this DPS is located limit the number and type of fishing licenses issued but sea turtle bycatch is not considered in these authorizations. It is unlikely that bycatch mortality can be sufficiently reduced across the range of the DPS in
Incidental capture of sea turtles in artisanal and commercial fisheries is a significant threat to the survival of green turtles in the Mediterranean. Fishing practices alone have been estimated to result in over 150,000 sea turtle captures per year, with approximately 50,000 mortalities (Lucchetti and Sala, 2009; Casale, 2011) and sea turtle bycatch in multiple gears in the Mediterranean is considered among the most urgent conservation priorities globally (Wallace
In the Mediterranean, surface longline fisheries are a source of green turtle bycatch (Camiñas, 2004). Incidental captures have been reported from Cyprus (Godley
Casale (2008) considered mortality by set nets to be 60 percent, with a resulting estimate of 16,000 turtles killed per year. However, a breakdown of these estimates by turtle species is not available. Most of these turtles are likely juveniles, with an average size of 45.4 cm CCL (n=74, Casale, 2008).
Green turtles have been reported as incidentally captured in bottom trawls in Egypt (Nada and Casale, 2011), Greece (Margaritoulis
Propeller and collision injuries from boats and ships are becoming more common for sea turtles in the Mediterranean, although it is unclear as to whether the events, or just the reporting of the injuries, are increasing. Speedboat and jet-ski impacts are of particular concern in areas of intense tourist activity, such as Greece, Turkey, and Syria. Boats operating near sea turtle nesting beaches during the nesting season are likely to either cause females to abandon nesting attempts or cause their injury or death (Camiñas, 2004). Males may also be affected in high-use boating areas where sea turtle mating occurs (Demetropoulos, 2000; Rees
Unattended or discarded nets, floating plastics and bags, and tar balls are of particular concern in the Mediterranean (Camiñas, 2004; Margaritoulis, 2007). Monofilament netting appears to be the most dangerous waste produced by the fishing industry (Camiñas, 2004).
The discharge of chemical substances, including highly toxic chromium compounds from a soda-chromium factory close to the Kazanli nesting beach in Turkey, is cause for concern (Kasparek
Both the marine and terrestrial realms will be influenced by temperature increases and will likely undergo alterations that will adversely affect green turtles. Mediterranean turtle populations could be affected by the alteration of thermal sand characteristics (from global warming), resulting in the reduction or cessation of male hatchling production (Kasparek
In summary, within Factor E, we find that fishery bycatch and marine pollution that occurs throughout the range of the Mediterranean DPS are significant threats to this DPS. In addition, boat strikes and changes likely to result from climate change are an increasing threat to the persistence of this DPS.
Regional and national efforts are underway to conserve green turtles (often all sea turtles) throughout the range of the DPS. The extent to which threats have been reduced as a result of these efforts is difficult to ascertain.
Green turtle nesting primarily occurs in Turkey, Cyprus, and Syria, and a
There has been success within these protected areas, but as the protection has been in place for some time and the threats to the species remain (particularly from increasing tourism activities), it is unlikely that the protective measures discussed here are sufficient for the conservation of the species in the Mediterranean.
Marine debris is also a significant problem on many green turtle nesting beaches in the eastern Mediterranean, in particular the nesting beaches of Cyprus and Turkey (Camiñas, 2004; Demetropoulos and Hadjichristophorou, 2010; Fuller
Protection of marine habitats is in the early stages in the Mediterranean, as in other areas of the world. Off the Lara-Toxeftra nesting beaches in western Cyprus, a marine protection zone extends to the 20-m isobath (
The Mediterranean DPS is characterized by low green turtle nesting abundance at 32 different locations, with many of these sites having only one or two known nesting females and none having greater than 245 nesting females. While some of these sites show stable or increasing trends, the extremely low nesting abundance of this DPS compared to historical abundance creates an intrinsically high risk to the long-term stability of the population. The spatial range of the population is limited to the eastern Mediterranean, and the nesting season is consistent throughout this DPS (June to August; Broderick
The five-factor analysis in the Status Review reveals numerous significant threats to green turtles within the range of the DPS. Coastal development, beachfront lighting, erosion resulting from sand extraction, illegal harvest, detrimental fishing practices, and marine pollution both at nesting beaches and important foraging grounds are continuing concerns across the Mediterranean DPS, and are insufficiently tempered by conservation efforts. Current illegal harvest of green turtles for human consumption continues as a moderate threat to this DPS. Fishery bycatch occurs throughout the Mediterranean Sea, particularly bycatch mortality of green turtles in pelagic longline, set net, and trawl fisheries. Additional threats from boat strikes, which are becoming more common, and changes likely to result from climate change will negatively affect this DPS.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the Mediterranean DPS as endangered. Based on its low nesting abundance, limited spatial distribution, and exposure to increasing threats, we find that this DPS is presently in danger of extinction throughout its range.
The South Atlantic DPS's range boundary begins at the border of Panama and Colombia at 7.5° N., 77° W., heads due north to 10.5° N., 77° W., then northeast to 19° N., 63.5° W., and along 19° N. latitude to Mauritania in Africa, to include the U.S. Virgin Islands in the Caribbean. It extends along the coast of Africa to South Africa, with the southern border being 40° S. latitude.
Green turtle nesting occurs on beaches along the western coast of Africa from southern Mauritania to South Africa, in the middle of the South Atlantic on Ascension Island, in the Caribbean portion of the South Atlantic including Caribbean South America, and along eastern South America down through Brazil (Figure 2). In the eastern South Atlantic, significant sea turtle habitats have been identified, including green turtle feeding grounds in Corisco Bay, Equatorial Guinea/Gabon (Formia, 1999); Congo (Bal
Long-term monitoring data for this DPS are relatively scarce. There are three sites for which 10 or more years of recent data are available for annual nesting female abundance (a criterion for presenting trends in a bar graph in the Status Review): (1) Ascension Island, UK; (2) Galibi and Matapica Reserves, Suriname; and (3) Atol das Rocas, Brazil. Together, the first two sites represent approximately 26,759 nesting females (42 percent of the population), while the third site has only 275 nesting females (Bellini
With regard to spatial structure, the phylogenic relationship of the eastern Caribbean nesting sites indicates that, despite the close proximity of other Caribbean nesting sites, they are more closely related to the nesting sites in the South Atlantic (M. Jensen, NRC, unpubl. data). Green turtle nesting sites found in Brazil, Ascension Island, and West Africa have shallow structuring and are dominated by a common and widespread haplotype, CM-A8, that is found in high frequency across all nesting sites in the South Atlantic (Bjorndal
Overall, many demographic parameters of green turtles in the South Atlantic appear to vary widely among the various nesting assemblages. However, this variability in parameters such as remigration interval, clutch size, hatching success, sex ratio, and clutch frequency is not separated out regionally within the range of the DPS and therefore does not necessarily suggest a high level of population structuring. Average sizes of nesting females are the largest reported for females globally (Hirth, 1997; Almeida
With regard to diversity and resilience, the overall range of the DPS is extensive and varied, with both insular and continental nesting. Ascension Island, one of the largest nesting sites, is isolated and protected in the middle of the South Atlantic, and appears to have migratory connections to nesting sites on the eastern and western ends of the DPS's range. The insular sites vary quite a bit in terms of potential impacts from sea level rise and tropical weather. Aves Island, one of the largest Caribbean nesting sites within the range of the South Atlantic DPS is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise as it is a very low-lying island.
At continental sites in the South Atlantic DPS destruction and modification of sea turtle nesting habitat (for green turtles and other species) result from coastal development and construction, placement of erosion control structures and other barriers to nesting, beachfront lighting, vehicular and pedestrian traffic, sand extraction, beach erosion, beach sand placement, beach pollution, removal of native vegetation, and planting of non-native vegetation (D'Amato and Marczwski, 1993; Marcovaldi and dei Marcovaldi, 1999; Naro-Maciel
In very low-lying islands such as Aves, rising sea levels and increased storms could result in a loss of nesting habitat, thus potentially eliminating their functionality as nesting beaches.
On the western side of the South Atlantic, the Brazil Current Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) region is characterized by the Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA) as suffering severe impacts in the areas of pollution, coastal habitat modification, and overexploitation of fish stocks (Marques
In Brazil, green turtles in degraded coastal areas that have ingested plastic debris have been found to have diets that are lower in diversity and quality (Santos
In summary, we find that the South Atlantic DPS of the green turtle is negatively affected by ongoing changes in both its terrestrial and marine habitats as a result of land and water use practices as considered above in Factor A. However, sufficient data are not available to assess the significance of
Overutilization for commercial purposes likely was a factor that contributed to the historical declines of this DPS. Although legal and illegal collection of eggs and harvest of turtles persists as a threat to this DPS, it does not appear to be a significant threat to its resilience. Eggs are taken for human consumption in Brazil, but the amount is considered minor when compared to historical rates of egg collection (Marcovaldi and dei Marcovaldi, 1999; Marcovaldi
Throughout the Caribbean areas of the South Atlantic DPS, harvest of green turtle eggs and turtles, both illegal and legal, continues (Dow
Turtles are harvested along the west African coast and, in some areas, are considered a significant source of food and income due to the poverty of many residents (Formia
FP is highly variable in its presence and severity throughout the range of the DPS, with areas of lower water quality, especially due to nutrient enrichment, often being the sites with the most prevalent and most severe cases of FP. In Brazilian waters, FP has been documented but is highly variable among sites (Williams and Bunkley-Williams, 2000). FP has been confirmed among green turtles of Africa's Atlantic coast, from Gabon and Equatorial Guinea (Formia
Eggs and nests in Brazil experience depredation, primarily by foxes (
Although disease and predation are known to occur, quantitative data are not sufficient to assess the degree of impact of these threats on the persistence of this DPS.
There are at least 20 national and international treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms that pertain to the South Atlantic DPS. Regulatory mechanisms that address the direct capture of green turtles for most of the countries within this DPS are implemented to various degrees throughout the range of the DPS, with some countries having no commitment to the implementation of the regulation. The main threats to South Atlantic green turtles include fishery bycatch, marine debris and pollution, habitat destruction affecting eggs and hatchlings at nesting beaches, and nest and hatchling predation. Most South Atlantic countries, including those in South America, the Caribbean, and Africa, have developed national legislation and have various projects sponsored by governments, local communities, academic institutions, and non-governmental organizations to protect sea turtles and nesting and foraging habitats to varying degrees (Dow et al., 2007; Formia et al., 2003). The consistency and effectiveness of such programs likely vary greatly across countries and over time based on resource availability and political stability. In addition, some countries have site specific legislation or conservation designation for turtle habitat protection. Regional and national legislation to conserve green turtles (often all sea turtles) exists throughout the range of the DPS. The extent to which threats have been reduced as a result of these efforts is difficult to ascertain. The following countries have laws to protect green turtles: Angola, Argentina, Ascension Island, Benin, Brazil, British Virgin Islands, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, French Guiana, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Guyana, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Namibia, Nigeria, St. Helena, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra-Leone, South Africa, Suriname, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, Uruguay, Venezuela.
The Status Review described limited regulatory mechanisms to address bycatch, such as TED requirements; however, there are no widespread regulations to address bycatch as a result of the gill net fisheries. A variety of countries operate industrial trawling off Guinea-Bissau. The national government does not have any requirements for TED use in their waters. There is also extensive illegal fishing occurring (Catry
The Status Review did not reveal any regulatory mechanisms in place to specifically address coastal development, marine pollution, sea level rise, and effects of climate change that continue to contribute to the extinction risk of this DPS.
Green turtles are incidentally captured throughout the South Atlantic DPS in pelagic and demersal longlines, drift and set gill nets, bottom and mid-water trawls, fishing dredges, pound nets and weirs, haul and purse seines, pots and traps, and hook and line gear.
There is also substantial documentation of the interaction of small-scale artisanal gill net fisheries with green turtles in their foraging grounds along the western South Atlantic, with green turtles documented as the most common species stranded throughout the coast of Brazil (Marcovaldi
Incidental captures of juvenile green turtles have also been documented on important foraging grounds off Argentina, especially Samborombón Bay and El Rincón, primarily from gill nets used by the artisanal fisheries, but also from shrimp nets and other artisanal fishing gear (González Carman
A variety of countries operate industrial trawling off Guinea-Bissau. The national government does not have any requirements for TED use in their waters. There is also extensive illegal fishing occurring (Catry
In Ghana and the Ivory Coast, fish stocks have been reduced through overfishing and environmental degradation, and many fishers that incidentally catch sea turtles will keep and kill the turtle to feed their families (Tanner, 2013). Since 2001, a push has been made to generate alternative sources of income for the local populations of the Ivory Coast and to employ ex-poachers to patrol the beaches (Peñate
Various studies have shown high prevalence of marine debris ingestion by green turtles in the western South Atlantic, in some cases occurring in 100 percent of the individuals examined (Bugoni
Oil exploration and extraction within the Gulf of Guinea rapidly increased since the discovery of oil reserves in the 1980s and 1990s (Formia
As in other areas of the world, climate change and sea level rise have the potential to affect green turtles in the South Atlantic. Effects of climate change include, among other things, increased sea surface temperature, the alteration of thermal sand characteristics of beaches (from warming temperatures), which could result in the reduction or cessation of male hatchling production (Hawkes
In summary, within Factor E, we find that bycatch that occurs throughout the South Atlantic, particularly bycatch mortality of green turtles from nearshore gill net fisheries, continues to be a significant threat to this DPS. In addition, changes likely to result from climate change are also an increasing threat to this DPS and likely a significant threat to the persistence of this DPS.
The main in-water threat to green turtles in the South Atlantic DPS is incidental capture in fisheries, although marine debris and pollution are also threats. The main threat on beaches is habitat destruction, followed by hatchling predation. Most South Atlantic countries, including those in South America, the Caribbean, and Africa, have developed national legislation and have various projects sponsored by governments, local communities, academic institutions, and non-governmental organizations to protect sea turtles, and nesting and foraging habitats to varying degrees (Dow
Conservation through education is a widely-used and valuable tool throughout nations within the range of the South Atlantic DPS and around the world. Such education initiatives can be highly successful. In Akassa, Nigeria, a dedicated, intensive conservation education program by the Akassa Community Development Project resulted in sea turtles being recognized locally as an essential part of the area's natural heritage. This has resulted in the majority of the nests in Akassa being protected, and when live stranded turtles are found, they are released (Formia
In the Caribbean, green turtle conservation on the nesting beach varies widely among the 22 nations and territories. However, programs at the three largest nesting sites—Aves Island, French Guiana, and Suriname—with over 500 crawls per year (Dow
In South America, outside of the Caribbean, Brazil is the only nation with substantial green turtle nesting. In Brazil, the primary nesting areas are monitored by Projeto TAMAR, the national sea turtle conservation program, and many detrimental human activities are restricted by various state and Federal laws (Marcovaldi and dei Marcovaldi, 1999; Marcovaldi
The South Atlantic Association is a multinational group that includes representatives from Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina that meets bi-annually to share information and develop regional action plans to address threats, including bycatch. In 2001, the Brazilian Plan for Reduction of Incidental Sea Turtle Capture in Fisheries was created to address incidental capture of the five species in the country (Marcovaldi
Green turtle nesting occurs on many beaches along the western coast of Africa, and there have been, and continue to be, sea turtle projects in many of the nations in the area ranging from research to public awareness to government conservation efforts (see Formia
Green turtle conservation efforts on Ascension Island have involved extensive monitoring, outreach, and research. The group Turtles in the UK Overseas Territories promotes the conservation, research, and management of marine turtle populations and their habitats, and has worked extensively on Ascension Island (
Overall, conservation efforts for green turtles in the South Atlantic DPS are inconsistent. While there are numerous and varied conservation efforts, especially on the primary nesting beaches, many issues remain due to limited enforcement of existing laws and marine protected areas as well as extensive fishery bycatch, especially in coastal waters. The effectiveness and consistency of conservation measures will need to be increased substantially to prevent the further decline, and allow the recovery, of this DPS in the future.
Nesting abundance for this DPS is relatively high, with large rookeries spread out geographically, the two largest at Poilão, Guinea-Bissau, and Ascension Island, UK. Population trends within rookeries are inconsistent and, in many cases, the data are limited and a trend could not be determined, even for major rookeries. While some nesting beaches such as Ascension Island, Aves Island, and Galibi appear to be increasing, others such as Poilão, Trindade, and Atol das Rocas seem to be stable or do not have sufficient data to make a determination. Bioko, Equatorial Guinea, appears to be in decline. The diversity/resilience of the DPS is bolstered by the widespread nature of the rookeries, but a potential concern is the domination of the DPS by insular nesting sites, which has the potential to reduce the resilience of the DPS in the face of sea level rise and increasing tropical storm activity.
The 5-factor analysis in the Status Review revealed numerous continuing threats to green turtles within the South Atlantic DPS. Habitat destruction and degradation both at nesting beaches and important foraging grounds is a continuing concern, though inconsistent across the DPS. Overutilization (harvest) of green turtles within the South Atlantic was likely a primary factor in past declines. While reduced from those levels due to increased legal protections, harvest is still thought to be fairly extensive in some areas of western Africa. Fishery bycatch also continues to be a major concern throughout the range of the DPS, near nesting beaches and foraging areas as well as on the high seas. Despite increasing legal protections for sea turtles within the DPS, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is a noted issue. While many international and national laws purporting to protect sea turtles exist, limitations in resources and political will create a situation of inconsistent or sometimes nonexistent practical measures to enforce those laws. Increasing awareness and conservation efforts by governments, local communities, non-governmental organizations, and industries have helped to reduce threats, but efforts remain inconsistent and often resource limited.
While the Status Review indicates that the DPS shows strength in many of the critical population parameters, there are still concerns about the impacts of ongoing threats. The increasing threats are not reflected in the current trend for the South Atlantic DPS as it was based on nesting numbers and not all current life stages. These increasing threats to the population will only become apparent when those life stages affected by the threats return to nest and the beaches are consistently monitored, as the trend information is based solely on numbers of nests. This lag time and nesting data were considered in our analysis.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the South Atlantic DPS as threatened. We do not find the DPS to be in danger of extinction presently because of high nesting abundance and
The range of the Southwest Indian DPS has as its western boundary the shores of continental Africa from the equator, just north of the Kenya-Somalia border, south to the Cape of Good Hope (South Africa), and extends south from there along 19° E. longitude to 40° S., 19° E. Its southern boundary extends along 40° S. latitude from 19° E. to 84° E., and its eastern boundary runs along 84° E. longitude from 40° S. latitude to the equator. Its northern boundary extends along the equator from 84° E. to the continent of Africa just north of the Kenya-Somalia border (Figure 2). Nesting occurs along the east coast of Africa as far south as 25° S., the north, west, and south coasts of Madagascar, and scattered offshore islands in the southwest Indian Ocean (Figure 8.1 in the Status Review). Foraging occurs along the east coast of Africa, around Madagascar where numerous seagrass beds are found, and on shallow banks and shoals throughout the region, including those associated with virtually every island in Seychelles (Mortimer, 1984; Mortimer
For the DPS, there are 14 nesting sites with some measure of abundance, four of which have more than 10,000 nesting females: Europa (Eparses Islands, France; 25,500; Lauret-Stepler
Green turtles in the Southwest Indian Ocean were exploited for many decades (Hughes, 1974; Frazier, 1980, 1982; Mortimer
With regard to spatial structure, genetic sampling in the Southwest Indian DPS has been fairly extensive and nesting sites are relatively well represented, with the exception of the northern nesting sites. Mitochondrial DNA studies indicate a moderate degree of spatial structuring within this DPS, with connectivity between proximate nesting sites (see below). Overall, the Southwest Indian DPS appears to have at least two genetic stocks: (1) The South Mozambique Channel consisting of Juan de Nova and Europa; and (2) the numerous nesting sites in the North Mozambique Channel consisting of Nosy Iranja, Mayotte, Mohéli, Glorieuses, Cosmoledo, Aldabra, Farquhar, also including Tromelin located east of Madagascar (Bourjea
With regard to diversity and resilience, nesting in the Southwest Indian DPS occurs throughout the range of this DPS on islands, atolls, and on the main continent of Africa in Kenya. The nesting substrate can be variable as some of the nesting beaches are volcanic islands and the atolls are made of coralline sand. Nesting occurs throughout the year with peaks that vary among nesting sites (Dalleau
The genetic structure of this DPS is characterized by high diversity and a mix of unique and rare haplotypes, as well as common and widespread haplotypes. These common and widespread haplotypes (CM-A8, CmP47 and CmP49) make up the majority of the haplotypes present in the Southwest Indian DPS and appear to be ancestral haplotypes (based on presence in the South Atlantic and Southwest Pacific DPSs). The Southwest Indian Ocean represents a genetic hotspot with 0.3 to 6.5 percent (mean = 4.2 percent) estimated sequence divergence among the seven haplotypes identified. These haplotypes belong to three highly diverged genetic clades of haplotypes and highlights the complex colonization history of the region. There have been no nDNA studies from this region, nor are there studies published on genetic stock composition at foraging areas within the range of the Southwest Indian DPS.
Habitat degradation is reported as an important source of additional mortality for this DPS, although the exact scale of habitat destruction at nesting beaches often is undocumented (Bourjea, 2012). In particular, habitat destruction due to development of the coastline and dredging or land-fill in foraging areas is a threat to green turtles throughout the Seychelles (Mortimer
In Mohéli, Comoros Islands, habitat degradation due to sedimentation, sand extraction, and coral reef/seagrass bed degradation is also a concern (Ahamada, 2008). Similar situations are reported for Tanzania (Bourjea, 2012) and Madagascar (Ciccione
For both the terrestrial and the neritic/oceanic zones, we believe that sufficient data are not available to assess the significance of these threats to the persistence of this DPS.
Legal and illegal collection of eggs and harvest of turtles throughout the Southwest Indian DPS for human consumption persists as a threat to this DPS. Egg poaching has been reported for Comoros Islands (Ahamada, 2008; Bourjea, 2012); Mozambique (Costa
Nesting green turtle numbers in the Seychelles have increased at protected sites, but declined where there has been heavy poaching, as on the developed islands of Mahé, Praslin, and La Digue (Bourjea, 2012). On Assumption Island and Aldabra, the number of nesting females was known to have decreased due to overharvesting (Mortimer, 1984), but they have been protected at Aldabra since 1968 (J. Mortimer, pers. comm., Seychelles Dept. of Environment, 2014).
Areas of particularly heavy exploitation of green turtles include foraging locations in the Western Indian Ocean such as Madagascar (Rakotonirina and Cooke, 1994; Mbindo, 1996; Bourjea, 2012). Artisanal fisheries, such as beach seines and gill nets, have been reported to take tens of thousands of turtles annually (Hughes, 1981; Rakotonirina, 1987; Rakotonirina and Cooke, 1994; Lilette, 2006; Humber
In summary, current legal and illegal collection of eggs and harvest of turtles persists as a threat throughout this DPS. The killing of nesting females continues to threaten the stability of green turtle populations in many areas affecting the DPS by reducing adult abundance and egg production.
The prevalence of FP in the Southwest Indian DPS is not known. FP is extremely rare among green turtles in Seychelles (J.A. Mortimer, unpublished data). Side striped jackals (
However, quantitative data are not sufficient to assess the degree of impact of these threats on the persistence of this DPS.
There are at least 15 national and international treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms that pertain to the Southwest Indian DPS. The analysis of these existing regulatory mechanisms assumed that all would remain in place at their current levels; however, some are not realizing their full potential because they are not adequately enforced.
Regulatory mechanisms that address the direct capture of green turtles are implemented to various degrees throughout the range of the DPS with some countries having no commitment to the implementation of the regulation. Existing regulatory mechanisms to address bycatch and coastal development are not implemented adequately as evident by the high level of bycatch within this DPS.
In addition to broad-reaching international instruments, the following countries have laws to protect green turtles: Mozambique, Republic of Seychelles, Comoros Islands, Mayotte Island, and the French Eparses Islands. However, these regulatory mechanisms are not range-wide and do not address the loss of the nesting beach, overutilization, and bycatch that are significant threats to this DPS. The Status Review revealed a lack of existing regulatory mechanisms to address sea level rise, and effects of climate change that continue to contribute to the extinction risk of this DPS.
Quantifying the magnitude of the threat of fisheries on green turtles in the Southwest Indian DPS is very difficult given the low level of observer coverage and dearth of investigations into bycatch conducted by countries that have large fishing fleets. Sea turtles are caught in demersal and pelagic longlines, trawls, gill nets, and seines (Peterson, 2005; Louro
Effects of climate change include, among other things, increased sea surface temperatures, the alteration of thermal sand characteristics of beaches (from warming temperatures), which could result in the reduction or cessation of male hatchling production (Hawkes
In summary, within Factor E, we find that fishery bycatch that occurs throughout the range of the DPS, particularly bycatch of green turtles from long lining operations, small
Nine countries of the southwest Indian Ocean developed and signed the Indian Ocean Southeast Asian Marine Turtle Memorandum of Understanding (IOSEA;
Also within the Southwest Indian DPS, the Western Indian Ocean-Marine Turtle Task Force plays a role in sea turtle conservation. This is a technical, non-political working group comprised of specialists from eleven countries: Comoros, France (La Réunion), Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa, United Kingdom and Tanzania, as well as representatives from intergovernmental organizations, academic, and non-governmental organizations within the region.
The Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) is playing an increasingly constructive role in turtle conservation. In 2005, the IOTC adopted Resolution 05/08, superseded by Resolution 09/06 on Sea Turtles, which sets out reporting requirements on interactions with sea turtles and accordingly provides an executive summary per species for adoption at the Working Party on Ecosystem and By-catch and then subsequently at the Scientific Committee. In 2011, IOTC developed a “Sea Turtle Identification Card” to be distributed to all long-liners operating in the Indian Ocean (
Although there is considerable uncertainty in anthropogenic mortalities, especially in the water, the DPS may have benefitted from conservation efforts at the nesting beaches.
The Southwest Indian DPS is characterized by relatively high levels of green turtle nesting abundance and increasing trends. The overall nesting range for the Southwest Indian DPS occurs throughout the range of this DPS on islands, atolls, and on the main continent of Africa in Kenya. The fact that turtles nest on both insular and continental sites, and nesting substrate can be variable as some of the nesting beaches are volcanic islands and the atolls are made of coralline sand, suggests a high degree of nesting diversity. Nesting also occurs throughout the year with peaks that vary among rookeries (Dalleau
Nesting beaches throughout the range of this DPS are susceptible to coastal development and associated beachfront lighting, erosion, and sea level rise. Coral reef and seagrass bed degradation continues in portions of the range of the DPS affecting foraging turtles. Direct capture of juvenile and adult turtles continues to take place using a variety of gear types in artisanal and industrial fisheries.
The Southwest Indian DPS is protected by various international treaties and agreements as well as a few national laws, and there are protected beaches throughout the range of this DPS. As a result of these designations and agreements, many of the intentional impacts directed at sea turtles have been lessened, such as the harvest of eggs and adults in several nesting areas, although the extent to which they are reduced is not clear.
While the Status Review indicates that the DPS shows strength in many of the critical population parameters, there are still concerns about threats to the DPS from fisheries interactions, direct harvest (eggs and adults), and climate change.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the Southwest Indian DPS as threatened. We do not find the DPS to be in danger of extinction presently because of the high nesting abundance and geographically widespread nesting at a diversity of sites; however, the continued threats are likely to endanger the DPS within the foreseeable future.
The range of the North Indian DPS begins at the border of Somalia and Kenya north into the Gulf of Aden, Red Sea, Persian Gulf and east to the Gulf of Mannar off the southern tip of India and includes a major portion of India's southeastern coast up to Andra Pradesh. The southern and eastern boundaries are the equator (0°) and 84° E., respectively, which intersect in the southeast corner of the range of the DPS. It is bordered by the following countries (following the water bodies from west to east): Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea, Sudan, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India, and Sri Lanka (Figure 2).
Nesting is concentrated primarily in the northern and western region of the range of the North Indian DPS from the Arabian Peninsula to the Pakistani-Indian border, with smaller but significant nesting colonies occurring in Sri Lanka, India's Lakshadweep Island group, and the Red Sea. Nesting in the Arabian Gulf occurs in low numbers.
Seagrass beds are extensive within the range of the DPS, although a comprehensive understanding of juvenile and adult foraging areas is lacking. There are extensive foraging areas in the Arabian Gulf, on the coasts of Oman and Yemen, Gulf of Aden, and in the Red Sea (Ross and Barwani, 1982; Salm, 1991; Salm and Salm, 2001). Barr al Hickman, along the Sahil al Jazit coastline in Oman, is one of the most important known foraging grounds for green turtles. Although development of dense seagrass beds is limited seasonally due to monsoons, the Arabian Sea coast's foraging areas are extensive (Jupp
Thirty-eight total nesting sites were identified by the SRT, some being individual beaches and others representing multiple nesting beaches, although nesting data is more than a decade old for the vast majority of these sites. Nonetheless, our best estimates indicate that, of the 38 sites, two have >10,000 nesting females (Ras Sharma,
Nesting at Ras Al Hadd appears to have increased from approximately 6,000 females nesting each year for the period 1977 to 1979 (Ross and Barwani, 1982) through the late 1980s (Groombridge and Luxmoore, 1989), to the estimate of 16,184 nesting females, as calculated from 21,578 nests found in 2007 (AlKindi
With regard to spatial structure, only one stock from this DPS (in Saudi Arabia) has been characterized genetically based on limited sampling; however, it was found to be very distinct from other nesting sites elsewhere in the Indian Ocean based on mtDNA analysis. There are no studies of foraging grounds within the range of the North Indian DPS to provide information on the distribution or the mixing of turtles outside of this DPS. A few flipper tag recoveries have been reported with no reported recoveries outside of the range of the North Indian DPS. Adult females from Egypt, Sri Lanka, and Oman were satellite tagged and tracked during post-nesting migrations, and all remained within the range of the North Indian DPS. The satellite telemetry data for nesting females in Sri Lanka provided some information on possible foraging locations which were within the inshore waters of southern Sri Lanka and the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve, although sample size was limited (Richardson
With regard to diversity and resilience, the demography of green turtles in the North Indian DPS appears to vary among nesting assemblages, suggesting a complex population structuring in the North Indian DPS. The population is moderately dispersed within the range of the North Indian DPS, although the greatest nesting is concentrated in the northern and western region of the DPS's range, with about 72 percent of the nesting concentrated in Oman and Yemen. The nesting season varies widely within the range of the DPS. The peak nesting season in Ras Sharma, Yemen is July, in Gujarat, India, it is from August to March (Sunderraj
One of the largest green turtle nesting populations within this DPS is concentrated on the nesting beaches of Ras Al Hadd, Oman (Ross, 1979). Ras Al Hadd, Ras al Jinz, and the numerous smaller nesting beaches south of it are protected from development as part of the Ras Al Hadd Nature Reserve. However, upland light pollution is negatively impacting these otherwise suitable nesting habitats (E. Possardt, USFWS, pers. comm., 2013). The most important green turtle nesting beaches in Yemen fall within the Ras Sharma Protected Area, and this nesting habitat is secure from beach development threats.
Light pollution is increasing near the Karan Island, Saudi Arabia site from oil rig developments, but the impact on hatchlings and nesting females is unknown (J. Miller, Biological Research and Education Consultants, pers. comm., 2013). At Ras Baridi, one of the main nesting beaches in Saudi Arabia, uncontrolled particulate emissions from a large cement factory has coated the beaches at times and poses a threat to hatchlings because they are unable to emerge from the nest due to the hardened sand (PERSGA/GEF, 2004; Pilcher, 1999).
Trawling occurs throughout much of the range of the North Indian DPS and has the potential to destroy bottom habitat in these areas. Marine pollution, including direct contamination and structural habitat degradation, affects green turtle neritic and oceanic habitat. The most dramatic example of the threats to sea turtles and their habitat from oil pollution in the region is the Gulf War oil spill in the Arabian Gulf in 1991, which is estimated to be the largest oil spill in history at the time of the 2010 report (ABC, 2010).
In the Arabian Gulf, extensive seagrass beds provide important foraging sites for green turtles within waters of Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, but these are being degraded and lost from the continual threat of dredging, siltation, and land reclamation (Pilcher, 2000, 2006; Al-Muraikhi
In the waters surrounding the Lakshadweep islands in India, there exist high densities of green turtles that, without the natural level of control from the top predators such as tiger sharks, can cause an increase in grazing pressure and reduce the amount of healthy seagrass beds available (Kelkar
In summary, we find that the North Indian DPS of the green turtle is negatively affected by ongoing changes in both its terrestrial and marine habitats as a result of land and water use practices. Beach and marine pollution are an increasing threat to this DPS.
Directed take of eggs and turtles by humans occurs at the primary green
Illegal and legal capture of sea turtles and the collection of turtle eggs is fairly widespread in the Djibouti and Somalia region of the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea, and turtle meat, oil and eggs are an important source of subsidiary food for artisanal fishers (PERSGA, 2001; van de Elst, 2006; Galair, 2009; van de Giessen, 2011; Witsen, 2012). Harvesting of sea turtle eggs and meat for consumption by local communities and fishers occurs at a subsistence level in Eritrea (Howe
In spite of wildlife protection laws, green turtles are still killed opportunistically for trade in the Bay of Mannar between India and Sri Lanka (Bhupathy and Saravanan, 2006). In India, green turtle export was banned in the 1980s; however, subsistence harvesting continues (Bhupathy and Saravanan, 2006). An increase in the number of green turtles killed by fishers has been reported in Agatti Island, Lakshadweep, India. The cause for the killing has been linked to increases in green turtles within the area. The perception is that green turtles damage fishing gear and overgraze seagrass thereby reducing catch levels (Arthur
In summary, current legal and illegal collection of eggs and harvest of turtles throughout the range of the North Indian DPS for human consumption persists as a threat to this DPS. The harvest of nesting females continues to threaten the stability of green turtle populations in many areas affecting the DPS by reducing adult abundance and egg production.
The prevalence of FP in the North Indian DPS is not known. Predation of hatchlings and eggs by red foxes (
Although disease and predation are known to occur, quantitative data are not sufficient to assess the degree of impact of these threats on the persistence of this DPS.
There are several international treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms that pertain to the North Indian DPS, and nearly all countries lining the North Indian DPS have some level of national legislation directed at sea turtle protection. The following countries have laws to protect green turtles: Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, India, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. In addition, at least 14 international treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms apply to the conservation of green turtles in the North Indian DPS.
Within the last decade, since the establishment of the Jeddah Convention (The Regional Convention for the Conservation of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Environment), there is more of an effort to strengthen participation in international and regional agreements (PERSGA, 2010). The analysis of these existing regulatory mechanisms assumed that all would remain in place at their current levels. The overall effectiveness and enforcement of these laws varies among the countries and relies on each country's priorities. Often the enforcement of these laws is done in collaboration with non-governmental agencies such as HEPCA in the Red Sea (
Regulatory mechanisms that address the direct capture of green turtles are implemented to various degrees throughout the range of the DPS with some countries having no regulation in place. Our Status Review reported no widespread regulations for the gill net and trawl fisheries to address the threat of bycatch. The Status Review revealed a lack of existing regulatory mechanisms to address coastal development, sea level rise, and effects of climate change that continue to contribute to the extinction risk of this DPS.
Sea turtle bycatch from gill nets, trawls, and longline fisheries is a significant cause of sea turtle mortality for the North Indian DPS, although there are fewer bycatch data than for other regions of the world (Wright and Mohanty, 2002; Project GloBAL, 2007; Bourjea
Gill nets are widely deployed and used throughout the region and known to kill thousands of sea turtles in some regions (Project GloBAL, 2007). Two member Indian Ocean Tuna Commission parties, Iran and Kenya, alone reported the use of 12,023 gill nets in the Indian Ocean in 2012. In Lakshadweep and Tamil Nadu, India, the most common net fisheries (
Incidental capture of sea turtles in fishing nets (presumably in gill nets or set nets) has been identified as the main cause of mortality of juvenile green turtles within Iranian and the United Arab Emirates foraging areas (Mobaraki, 2007; Al-Abdessalaam
Shrimp trawling occurs in many countries throughout the range of the North Indian DPS including Pakistan, India, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. In Yemen, trawling is believed to be a significant threat to sea turtles, mainly hawksbill and greens; however, no data are available (Bourjea
Boat strikes have been identified as a major cause of sea turtle mortality in the United Arab Emirates (Al-Abdessalaam
Beach driving by fishers who haul and launch boats from Ras al Jinz beach in Oman is highly problematic, and hatchling turtles are likely being caught in ruts, struck or run over. However, no assessment has been conducted to determine the extent of impacts on nesting turtles and hatchlings (E. Possardt, USFWS, pers. comm., 2013).
Pollution has been identified as a main threat to sea turtles in Iran (Mobaraki, 2007) and Pakistan (Firdous, 2001); however, no specific information about the type of pollution was provided. In Sri Lanka, Kapurusinghe (Kapurusinghe, 2006) stated that polluted inland water flows into Beira Lake and subsequently the sea, and that garbage, including polythene and plastics, dumped on beaches in some areas is washed into the sea, where it can be lethal to sea turtles. In Gujarat, India, the increase in ports and shipping traffic results in problems from oil spills, garbage, and other pollutants such as fertilizers and cement (Surderraj
Similar to other areas of the world, climate change and sea level rise have the potential to affect green turtles in the North Indian DPS. Effects of climate change include, among other things, increased sea surface temperatures, the alteration of thermal sand characteristics of beaches (from warming temperatures), which could result in the reduction or cessation of male hatchling production (Hawkes
Within Factor E, we find that fishery bycatch (longline, gill net, and trawl fishing) occurs throughout the range of the DPS and is a significant threat to this DPS. In addition, pollution, vessel strikes, climate change and natural disasters are expected to be an increasing threat to the persistence of this DPS.
In 2012, the IOTC began requiring its 31 contracting Parties to report sea turtle bycatch and to use safe handling and release techniques for sea turtles on longline vessels. The IOTC and IOSEA also recently completed an “Ecological Risk Assessment and Productivity—Susceptibility Analysis of sea turtles overlapping with fisheries in the IOTC region.” One conclusion was that green turtles account for 50 88 percent of artisanal and commercial gill nets bycatch. Two methods of estimating total bycatch were used, and resulted in an annual gill net bycatch estimate of 29,488 sea turtles within the IOTC region.
While conservation efforts for the North Indian DPS are extensive and expanding, they still remain inadequate to ensure the long-term viability of the population. Efforts have been largely focused on the nesting beaches, and there are only recent efforts underway to understand the extent of green turtle interactions with gill nets and trawlers and the resulting cumulative effects from bycatch—one of the major threats to this DPS. Concerted efforts to identify and protected critical foraging grounds is also lacking.
The North Indian DPS has a high level of green turtle nesting abundance with two of the largest nesting assemblages of green turtles in the world nesting in Yemen and Oman. The North Indian DPS also has expansive, largely undeveloped nesting beaches, and many of these beaches are protected from development as nationally designated reserves or protected areas, although threats still remain. The North Indian DPS also features extensive coastal seagrass beds distributed throughout the region, which provide abundant foraging grounds for this species. Nesting beaches are distributed broadly throughout the region.
Coastal development, beachfront lighting, fishing practices, and marine pollution at nesting beaches and important foraging grounds are continuing concerns across the DPS. Current illegal harvest of green turtles and eggs for human consumption is a continuing but limited threat to this DPS. Fishery bycatch occurs throughout the North Indian DPS, particularly bycatch mortality of green turtles from gill nets and trawl fisheries, and the cumulative mortality from these fisheries is probably the greatest threat to this DPS. Additional threats from boat strikes, which are becoming more common, and expected impacts of climate change, will negatively affect this DPS.
Conservation efforts are substantial but uneven in the range of the North Indian DPS and focused almost entirely on nesting beaches. The ability for some countries to sustain or develop needed
For the above reasons, we propose to list the North Indian DPS as threatened. We do not find the DPS to be in danger of extinction presently because of high nesting abundance in protected areas; however, the continued threats are likely to endanger the DPS within the foreseeable future.
The western boundary for the range of the East Indian-West Pacific DPS is 84° E. longitude from 40° S. to where it coincides with India near Odisha, northeast along the shoreline and into the West Pacific Ocean to include Taiwan extending east at 41° N. to 146° E. longitude, south and west to 4.5° N., 129° E., then south and east to West Papua in Indonesia and the Torres Straits in Australia. The southern boundary is 40° S. latitude, encompassing the Gulf of Carpentaria (Figure 2).
Green turtle nesting is widely dispersed throughout the range of the East Indian-West Pacific DPS, with important nesting sites occurring in Northern Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia (Sabah and Sarawak Turtle Islands), Peninsular Malaysia, and the Philippine Turtle Islands. The in-water range of the East Indian-West Pacific DPS is similarly widespread with shared foraging sites throughout the range of the DPS. The largest nesting site lies within Northern Australia, which supports approximately 25,000 nesting females (Limpus, 2009). Nonetheless, populations are substantially depleted from historical levels.
There are 58 known nesting sites, although we note that the nesting female estimates for many of these sites are over a decade old. The largest, Wellesley Group, lies in northern Australia and supports approximately 25,000 nesting females (EPA Queensland Turtle Conservation Project unpublished data cited in Limpus, 2009). Five sites have 5,001-10,000 nesting females: Bilang-Bilangan, Indonesia (7,156; Reischig
Green turtle populations within the range of the East Indian-West Pacific DPS have experienced apparent declines at some nesting sites, and increases at others in the past several decades. For instance, in Southeast Asia, data suggest that populations have declined in the Gulf of Thailand, Vietnam, and the Berau Islands, Meru Betiri National Park, Pangumbahan, Thamihla Kyun, and perhaps Enu Island, all in Indonesia, although the lack of recent and/or multiple year data prevents an assessment of the current trends at these sites. At Sipadan, Sarawak and Terengganu in Malaysia, nesting appears to be stable, although Terengganu might be decreasing. Nesting has remained stable in the Philippine Turtle Islands and may have increased at the Sabah Turtle Islands, Malaysia. In Western Australia, data are not sufficient to draw any conclusions regarding long-term trends, although these sites, together with the Wellesley Group in Northern Australia (the largest nesting site), may constitute the most important green turtle nesting concentration in the Indian Ocean.
When examining spatial structure for the East Indian-West Pacific DPS, the SRT examined three lines of evidence: genetic data, flipper and satellite tagging, and demographic data. Genetic sampling in the East Indian-West Pacific DPS has occurred at 22 nesting sites. There appears to be a complex population structure, even though there are gaps in sampling relative to distribution. Overall, this region is dominated by a few common and widespread haplotypes and has varying levels of spatial structure characterized by the presence of rare/unique haplotypes at most nesting sites. There is significant population substructuring.
Tagging and tracking studies have been geared to studying internesting migrations, and defining the range of internesting habitats and post-nesting migrations. Green turtles that were satellite tracked from Pulau Redang, Terengganu indicate migrations to the South China Sea and Sulu Sea areas (Liew, 2002). Cheng (2000) reported movements of eight post-nesting green turtles from Wan-An Island, Taiwan that were satellite tracked, and which distributed widely on the continental shelf to the east of mainland China. Satellite telemetry studies conducted from 2000 to 2003 demonstrated that the green turtles nesting at Taipin Tao are a shared natural resource among the nations in the southern South China Sea. Female green turtles tracked in the same area travelled long distances in a post-nesting migration, ending in the Sulu Sea in the Philippines and the Malaysia Peninsula with distances that ranged from 456 to 2,823 km (Charuchinda
Mixed stock analysis of foraging grounds shows that green turtles from multiple nesting beach origins commonly mix at feeding areas in foraging grounds across northern Australia (Dethmers
The demography of green turtles in the East Indian-West Pacific DPS varies throughout the nesting assemblages. This variation in parameters such as mean nesting size, remigration interval, internesting interval, clutch size, hatching success, and clutch frequency suggests a high level of population structuring in this DPS.
With regard to diversity and resilience, nesting and foraging areas are widespread within the range of this DPS, providing a level of population resilience through habitat diversity. The nesting season varies throughout the range of the DPS, with nesting from June to August in the inner Gulf of Thailand, peak nesting from March to July on Derawan Island (Charuchinda and Monanunsap, 1998; Abe
In the East Indian-West Pacific DPS, the majority of green turtle nesting beaches are extensively eroded. Nesting habitat is degraded due to a variety of human activities largely related to tourism. Coastal development and associated artificial lighting, sand mining, and marine debris affect the amount and quality of habitat that is available to nesting green turtles. However, there are sanctuaries and parks throughout the region where nests are protected to various degrees.
Most of the beaches in Vietnam have a large amount of marine debris, which includes glass, plastics, polystyrenes, floats, nets, and light bulbs. This debris can entrap turtles and impede nesting activity.
In Australia, the majority of green turtle nesting along the beaches of the Gulf of Carpentaria occurs outside of the protection of the National Park. Other minor nesting sites lie within the protected lands of the Indigenous Protected Areas (Limpus, 2009). In Western Australia, the impacts to nesting and hatchling green turtles by independent turtle watchers as well as off-road vehicles has increased in the Ningaloo region as the number of visitors has increased over the years (Waayers, 2010). Nesting turtles and hatchlings are routinely disturbed by people with their cars and flashlights (Kelliher
Green turtles forage in the seagrass beds around the Andaman and Nicobar Islands in India. Some of these seagrass beds in the South Andaman group are no longer viable foraging habitat because of siltation and degradation due to waste disposal, a byproduct of the rapid increase in tourism (Andrews, 2000). Green turtles that forage off the waters of the Bay of Bengal in south Bangladesh also face depleted foraging habitat from divers collecting seagrass for commercial purposes and by anchoring of commercial ships, ferries, and boats in this habitat (Sarkar, 2001). In the nearshore waters of Thailand, seagrass beds are partially protected since fishing gear such as trawls are prohibited (Charuchinda
Seagrass beds are found throughout the nearshore areas of Vietnam's mainland coast and islands (Ministry of Fisheries, 2003). Destructive fishing practices have been and possibly continue to be a major threat to this habitat in 21 of Vietnam's 29 provinces (Asia Development Bank, 1999 as cited in the Ministry of Fisheries, 2003) and in the waters of Indonesia (Cruz, 2002; Dethmers, 2010). Although these destructive fishing practices are prohibited by legislation passed in 1989, enforcement may not be sufficient to prevent these practices from occurring. Green turtle foraging habitat is under increased threat from decreased water quality through river run-off and development (Ministry of Fisheries, 2003).
In summary, within Factor A, we find that coastal development, beachfront lighting, erosion resulting from sand mining, and sea level rise, are a significant threat to a large portion of this DPS. The extent of fishing practices, depleted seagrass beds, and marine pollution is broad with high levels occurring in waters where high numbers of green turtles are known to forage and migrate are significant threats to the persistence of this DPS.
The green turtle populations within this DPS have been declining throughout their range. Populations throughout Asia have been depleted by long-term harvests of eggs and adults, and by by-catch in the ever-growing fisheries (Shanker and Pilcher, 2003). On St. Martins Island, Bangladesh, over-exploitation has brought the nesting turtles to near extinction (Hasan, 2009). Nesting females continue to be killed in countries within Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean (Fleming, 2001; Fretey, 2001; Cruz, 2002). Despite substantial declines in green turtle nesting numbers, egg harvest remains legal in several of the countries within the range of this DPS. Some countries have protections in place; however, harvest continues due to lack of enforcement.
In Myanmar and Thailand, hatcheries are set up to protect a portion of the eggs. However, these hatcheries retain hatchlings for several days for tourism purposes, thus reducing the likelihood of hatchling survival (Charuchinda
Turtle nesting numbers have decreased in peninsular Malaysia and the Philippines due to more than 40 years of overharvesting of eggs and females (Siow and Moll, 1982; de Silva, 1982; Limpus, 1995; Cruz, 2002). In order to provide some protection for turtles, all three Sabah Turtle Islands were acquired and protected by the Sabah State Government in the 1970s (de Silva, 1982). After more than 20 years of conservation efforts (1970-1990), the population had still not shown signs of recovery (Limpus
Local islanders in Indonesia have traditionally considered turtles, especially green turtles, as part of their diet (Hitipeuw and Pet-Soede, 2004 as cited in FAO, 2004). Illegal egg harvesting continues, but there is an increased effort to fully protect green turtles from harvest on the islands of Bilang-Bilangan and Mataha in Indonesia (Reischig
Despite legal protections for sea turtles, at-sea poaching of turtles is a continuing problem in Southeast Asia, especially by Hainanese and Vietnamese vessels. The poaching occurs in a wide-ranging area of the region, and has moved as turtle stocks have been depleted, with vessels being apprehended off Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines (Pilcher
In Australia, green turtles are harvested by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders for subsistence purposes. There is a widespread use of motorized aluminum boats in contrast to the traditional dugout canoes powered by paddles or sail. The total harvest of green turtles by indigenous people across northern and Western Australia is probably several thousand annually (Kowarsky, 1982; Henry and Lyle, 2003 as cited in Limpus, 2009).
Current legal and illegal collection of eggs and harvest of turtles occur throughout the East Indian-West Pacific DPS and persists as a significant threat to this DPS. The harvest of nesting females continues to threaten the stability of green turtle populations in many areas affecting the DPS by reducing adult abundance and reducing egg production.
FP has been found in green turtles in Indonesia (Adnyana
The best available data suggest that current nest and hatchling predation on the East Indian-West Pacific DPS is prevalent and may be an increasing threat without nest protection and predatory control programs in place. Depredation of nests by feral animals is also widespread in many South Asian areas (Sunderraj
Although disease and predation are known to occur, quantitative data are not sufficient to assess the degree of impact of these threats on the persistence of this DPS.
Although conservation efforts to protect some nesting beaches and marine habitat are underway, more widespread and consistent protection is needed. There are at least 16 national and international treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms that pertain to the East Indian-West Pacific DPS. The analysis of these existing regulatory mechanisms assumed that all would remain in place at their current levels. The following countries have laws to protect green turtles: Australia, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam. In addition, at least 17 international treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms apply to the conservation of green turtles in the East Indian-West Pacific DPS. However, some regulatory mechanisms, including laws and international treaties, are not realizing their full potential because they are not enforced, or do not apply in all countries occupied by the DPS.
Regulatory mechanisms are in place throughout the range of the DPS that address the direct capture of green turtles for most of the countries within this DPS. These are implemented to various degrees throughout the range of the DPS. There are some national regulations within this DPS that specially address the harvest of green turtles, while a few regulations are limited in that they only apply to certain size classes, or times of year, or allowed for traditional use.
Fishery bycatch throughout the range of the East Indian-West Pacific DPS (see Factor E), as well as anthropogenic threats to nesting beaches and foraging grounds (Factor A) and eggs/turtles and foraging (Factors A, B, C, and E), are substantial. Although national and international governmental and non-governmental entities in the East Indian-West Pacific DPS are currently working toward reducing green turtle bycatch as well as egg and turtle harvest, it is unlikely that this source of mortality can be sufficiently reduced across the range of the DPS in the near future. This is due to the lack of bycatch reduction in commercial and artisanal fisheries operating within the range of this DPS, the lack of comprehensive information on fishing distribution and effort, limitations on implementing demonstrated effective conservation measures, geopolitical complexities, limitations on enforcement capacity, and lack of availability of comprehensive bycatch reduction technologies. Beaches and in-water habitat throughout the range of the DPS are under various levels of protection, depending in part on the clarity of regulations and consistency of funding for enforcement.
In summary, although regulatory mechanisms are in place that should address direct and incidental take of green turtles within this DPS, these regulatory mechanisms are not implemented throughout the range of this DPS. These mechanisms are not sufficiently implemented to address the direct harvest of green turtles and are insufficient to address the major threat of bycatch which remains a significant risk to this DPS.
Incidental capture in artisanal and commercial fisheries is a significant threat to the survival of green turtles in the East Indian-West Pacific DPS. Green turtles may be caught in drift and set gill nets, bottom and mid-water trawling, fishing dredges, pound nets and weirs, and haul and purse seines.
Bycatch in fisheries using gears such as trawlers, drift nets, and purse seines is thought to be one of the main causes of decline in the green turtle population in Thailand and Malaysia. The rapid expansion of fishing operations is largely responsible for the increase in adult turtle mortality due to bycatch (Settle, 1995). The most used fishing gears in the waters of Thailand are trawling and drift gill nets. Heavy fishing is the main threat to foraging sea turtles (Chan
Gill nets and set bag nets are the two major fishing gears used in the Bay of Bengal, and green turtles are likely captured during these fishing operations (Hossain and Hoq, 2010). Along the
Trawl fishing is also common in Bangladesh. No green turtle stranding information is available to determine the fishery threat level to the green turtle population; however, it is expected to be high as TEDs are not used and the population has declined (Ahmed
One of the main threats to green turtles in Vietnam and Indonesia is the incidental capture from gill and trawl nets and the opportunistic capture by fishers. Hundreds of green turtles are captured by fisheries per year in Vietnam (Ministry of Fisheries, 2003; Hamann
In Indonesia, green turtles were recorded as one of the main species caught in the longline fisheries. Trawl gear is still allowed in the Arafura Sea, posing a major threat to green turtles (Dethmers, 2010). Shrimp trawl captures in Indonesia are high because of the limited use of TEDs (Zainudin
The estimated bycatch of the Japanese large-mesh drift net fishery in the North Pacific Ocean in 1990-1991 was 1,501 turtles, of which 248 were estimated to be green turtles (Wetherall
Pollution from oil spills, as well as from agricultural and organic chemicals, is a major threat to the waters used by green turtles in the Bay of Bengal (Sarkar, 2001). The result of human population growth in China has been an increased amount of pollutants in the coastal system. Discharges from untreated sewage have occurred in Xisha Archipelago (Li
In the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia, discarded fishing nets have been found to cause a high number of turtle deaths with the majority being green turtles (Chatto
Effects of climate change include, among other things, increased sea surface temperatures, the alteration of thermal sand characteristics of beaches (from warming temperatures), which could result in the reduction or cessation of male hatchling production (Hawkes
Natural environmental events, such as cyclones and hurricanes, may affect green turtles in the East Indian-West Pacific DPS. Typhoons have been shown to cause severe beach erosion and negatively affect hatching success at green turtle nesting beaches in Japan, especially in areas already prone to erosion.
In summary, within Factor E, we find that fishery bycatch, particularly from drift net and purse seine fisheries, occur throughout the East Indian-West Pacific DPS, with localized high levels of mortality in waters where juvenile to adult turtles are known to forage and migrate are a persistent risk to this DPS. In addition, vessel collisions, marine pollution, changes likely to result from climate change, and natural disasters are expected to be an increasing threat to the persistence of this DPS.
There are numerous ongoing conservation efforts in this region. Hatcheries have been set up throughout the region to protect a portion of the eggs laid and prevent complete egg harvesting. In addition, bycatch reduction efforts have been made in some areas, protected areas are established throughout the region, and monitoring, outreach and enforcement efforts have made progress in sea turtle conservation. Despite these conservation efforts, considerable uncertainty in the status of this DPS lies with inadequate efforts to measure bycatch in the region, a short time-series of monitoring on nesting beaches, and missing vital rates data necessary for population assessments.
In India, since 1978, the Centre for Herpetology/Madras Crocodile Bank Trust has conducted sea turtle surveys and studies in the islands. In a bilateral agreement, the Governments of the Philippines and Malaysia established The Turtle Island Heritage Protected Area (TIHPA), made up of nine islands (six in the Philippines and three in Malaysia). The TIHPA is one of the world's major nesting grounds for green turtles. Management of the TIHPA is shared by both countries. One of the nesting beaches for this DPS, Australia's Dirk Hartog Island, is part of the Shark Bay World Heritage Area and recently became part of Australia's National Park System. This designation may facilitate monitoring of nesting beaches and enforcement of prohibitions on direct take of green turtles and their eggs. Conservation efforts on nesting beaches have included invasive predator control.
Illegal trade of turtle parts continues to be a problem in the East Indian-West Pacific DPS. In order to reduce this threat, the Vietnamese Government, with assistance from IUCN, WWF, TRAFFIC and the Danish Government, formulated a Marine Turtle Conservation Action Plan in 2010 to expand awareness to fishers and enforcement officers, and to confiscate sea turtle products (Stiles, 2009; Ministry of Fisheries 2010). The level of effectiveness and progress of this program is not known.
TEDs are now in use in Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia and Brunei, expanded by initiatives of the South East Asian Fisheries Development Center (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2004). In 2000, the use of TEDs in the Northern Australian Prawn Fishery was made mandatory. Prior to the use of TEDs, this fishery took between 5,000 and 6,000 sea turtles as bycatch annually, with a mortality rate estimated to be 40 percent (Poiner and Harris, 1996). Since the mandatory use of TEDs has been in effect, the annual bycatch of sea turtles in the Northern
As in other DPSs, persistent marine debris poses entanglement and ingestion hazards to green turtles. In 2009, Australia's Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts published a threat abatement plan for the impacts of marine debris on vertebrate marine life (
The East Indian-West Pacific DPS is characterized by a relatively large geographic area with widespread nesting reported in 58 different locations throughout the range of the DPS. Although the numerous nesting sites have relatively high abundance of nesting females, decades of harvesting and habitat degradation have led to a drastic decline in the sea turtle populations within this DPS in the last century. Population trends at many of the higher abundance rookeries are decreasing, though there appears to be an increasing trend on Sabah in Malaysia and on Baguan in the Philippines, presumably due to effective conservation efforts.
Continued harvest, coastal development, beachfront lighting, erosion, fishing practices, and marine pollution both at nesting beaches and important foraging grounds are all continuing concerns across the range of the DPS. Harvest of turtles and eggs for human consumption continues as a high threat to this East Indian-West Pacific DPS. Coastal development, largely due to tourism, is an increasing threat in many areas. Fishery bycatch occurs throughout the range of the DPS, particularly bycatch mortality of green turtles from pelagic longline, set net, and trawl fisheries. Additional threats due to climate change, such as loss of habitat due to sea level rise and increased ratio of female to male turtles, negatively impact this DPS. Conservation efforts have been effective in a few areas but are lacking or not effective in most.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the East Indian-West Pacific DPS as threatened. We do not find the DPS to be in danger of extinction presently because of high nesting abundance and geographically widespread nesting at a diversity of sites; however, the continued threats are likely to endanger the DPS within the foreseeable future.
The range of the Central West Pacific DPS has a northern boundary of 41° N. latitude and is bounded by 41° N., 169° E. in the northeast corner, going southeast to 9° N., 175° W., then southwest to 13° S., 171° E., west and slightly north to the eastern tip of Papua New Guinea, along the northern shore of the Island of New Guinea to West Papua in Indonesia, northwest to 4.5° N., 129° E. then to West Papua in Indonesia, then north to 41° N., 146° E. It encompasses the Republic of Palau (Palau), FSM, New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands, Guam, the CNMI, and a portion of Japan (Ogasawara; Figure 2).
Green turtle nesting occurs at low levels throughout the geographic distribution of the DPS (approximately 51 sites), with isolated locations having higher nesting activity. Only two populations are known to have >1,000 nesting turtles, with all the rest having fewer than 400 nesting females, for a total number of known nesting females of approximately 6,500. The highest numbers of females nesting in this DPS are located in Gielop and Iar Island, Ulithi Atoll, Yap, Federated States of Micronesia (FSM; 1,412) or 22 percent of the population 2013); Chichijima (1,301) and Hahajima (394), Ogasawara, Japan; Bikar Atoll, Marshall Islands (300); and Merir Island, Palau (441; (NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Bureau of Marine Resources, 2005; Barr, 2006; Palau Bureau of Marine Resources, 2008; Maison
Green turtles departing nesting grounds within the range of this DPS travel throughout the western Pacific Ocean. Green turtles are found in coastal waters in low to moderate densities at foraging areas throughout the range of the DPS. Aerial sea turtle surveys show that an in-water population exists around Guam (Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources, 2011). In-water green turtle density in the Marianas Archipelago is low and mostly restricted to juveniles (Pultz
There is insufficient long-term and standardized monitoring information to adequately describe abundance and population trends for many areas of the Central West Pacific DPS. The available information suggests a nesting population decrease in some portions of the DPS like the Marshall Islands, or unknown trends in other areas such as Palau, Papua New Guinea, the Marianas, Solomon Islands, or the FSM (Maison
With regard to spatial structure, genetic sampling in the Central West Pacific has recently improved, but remains challenging given the large number of small islands and atoll nesting sites. Stock structure analysis indicated that nesting sites separated by more than 1,000 km were significantly differentiated from each other while neighboring nesting sites within 500 km showed no genetic differentiation (Dutton
With respect to tagging and telemetry, there are records of turtles flipper tagged in the Philippines nesting in the FSM; a turtle tagged in Japan was recorded nesting in the FSM; turtles tagged in the Japan Archipelago and China were recorded nesting in the Ogasawara islands (Suganuma, pers. comm., Ogasawara Marine Center, Everlasting Nature of Asia, unpublished data); and turtles tagged in the FSM were recaptured in the Philippines, Marshall
Demographic data availability is limited and somewhat variable for many nesting sites in the range of this DPS. Variability in parameters such as remigration interval, clutch size, hatching success, and clutch frequency is not separated out regionally within the DPS and, therefore, does not necessarily suggest a high level of population structuring.
With regard to diversity and resilience, the overall range of the DPS is relatively widespread, which lends some resilience. However, nesting generally occurs at what appear to be low numbers, except in several locations, and only on islands and atolls throughout the range of the DPS. Nesting information is limited for some areas, but occurs from November to August in Palau; from March through September in the FSM; and May to August in Ogasawara, Japan. Some turtles travel outside the bounds of the range of this DPS, into the East Indian/West Pacific DPS presumably to forage.
In the Central West Pacific Ocean, some nesting beaches have become severely degraded from a variety of activities. Destruction and modification of green turtle nesting habitat results from coastal development and construction, placement of barriers to nesting, beachfront lighting, vehicular and pedestrian traffic, sand extraction, beach erosion, beach pollution, removal of native vegetation, and presence of non-native vegetation.
Human populations are growing rapidly in many areas of the insular Pacific and this expansion is exerting increased pressure on limited island resources. The most valuable land on most Pacific islands is often located along the coastline, particularly when it is associated with a sandy beach. For instance, construction (and associated lighting) on the islands of Saipan, Tinian, and Rota in the CNMI, is occurring at a rapid rate in some areas and is resulting in loss or degradation of green turtle nesting habitat (NMFS and USFWS, 1998).
In the FSM, construction of houses and pig pens on Oroluk beaches in Pohnpei State interferes with turtle nesting by creating barriers to nesting habitat (NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Buden, 1999). Nesting habitat destruction is also a major threat to Guam turtles and has resulted mainly from construction and development due to increased tourism (NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Project GloBAL, 2009a). Coastal construction is a moderate problem on Majuro Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands (NMFS and USFWS, 1998); however, it is unknown to what extent nesting beaches are being affected. On the outer atolls of the Marshall Islands, beach erosion has been aggravated by airfield and dock development, and by urban development on Majuro and Kwajalein Atolls. In the Republic of Palau, increasing nesting habitat degradation from tourism and coastal development has been identified as a threat to sea turtles (Eberdong and Klain, 2008; Isamu and Guilbeaux, 2002), although the extent and significance of the impacts are unknown.
Also in the CNMI, the majority of the nesting beaches on Tinian are on military-leased land, where the potential for construction impacts exists (CNMI Coastal Resources Management Office, 2011). Increased public use of nesting beaches is a threat to sea turtle nesting habitat throughout the CNMI. Public use of beaches includes a variety of recreational activities, including picnicking, swimming, surfing, playing sports, scuba diving and snorkeling access (CNMI Coastal Resources Management Office, 2011). Beach driving is a pastime on Saipan and could threaten green turtle nesting habitat (NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Palacios, 2012a; Wusstig, 2012).
Expected U.S. military expansion plans for this region are likely to include relocation of thousands of military personnel to Guam and increased training exercises in the CNMI (CNMI Coastal Resources Management Office, 2011).
In the Ogasawara Islands of Japan, nighttime tourist and resident activity on beaches to view and photograph nesting turtles is a problem, resulting in harassment of nesting turtles and increased aborted nesting attempts (Ishizaki
Fishing methods not only incidentally capture green turtles and destroy bottom habitat (including seagrasses) but may also deplete invertebrate and fish populations and thus alter ecosystem dynamics. Dynamite fishing occurs in the FSM (NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Government of the Federated States of Micronesia, 2004) and the Marshall Islands (Hay and Sablan-Zebedy, 2005). Dynamite fishing, as well as use of fish poisons, occurs in Papua New Guinea, although these practices are small scale and relatively isolated (Berdach and Mandeakali, 2004). Coral reefs and seagrass beds within the urban centers of the four states of the FSM (Pohnpei, Yap, Chuuk, and Kosrae; NMFS and USFWS, 1998) and Saipan have been reported as being degraded by hotels, golf courses, and general tourist activities (Project GloBAL, 2009b), presumably as a result of runoff and other impacts. Coastal development in Guam has resulted in sedimentation, which has damaged Guam's coral reefs and, presumably, food sources for turtles (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). Coral reefs and seagrass habitat off the lagoon shoreline of the Kwajalein Atoll islands and Majuro Atoll have been degraded by coastal construction, dredging, boat anchoring, and/or eutrophication from sewage and runoff from landfills, grave sites, and pig and chicken pens (NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Hay and Sablan-Zebedy, 2005).
Dredging and filling as well as sand extraction have contributed to changes to longshore processes and coastal erosion in the Marshall Islands, FSM, Kiribati's Gilbert Islands chain, and Palau (Smith
Marine pollution, including direct contamination and structural habitat degradation, can affect green turtle neritic and oceanic habitat. In Palau, environmental contamination in the form of sewage effluent is a problem around Koror State, particularly Malakal Harbor, and nearby urban areas (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). In the Solomon Islands, sewage discharges from land and discharges of garbage, bilge water, and other pollutants from ships have been identified as sources of pollution to the coastal and marine environments (Solomon Islands Ministry of Environment Conservation and Meteorology, 2008). Land-based activities, including logging, plantation
Environmental contamination was identified as a minor problem in the Marshall Islands in 1998 (NMFS and USFWS, 1998) and around Wake Island (Defense Environmental Network and Information Exchange, undated). Rudrud
In summary, we find that the Central West Pacific DPS of the green turtle is negatively affected by ongoing changes in both its terrestrial and marine habitats as a result of land and water use practices as considered above in Factor A. Destruction and modification of green turtle nesting habitat resulting from coastal development and construction, beachfront lighting, vehicular and pedestrian traffic, beach erosion, and pollution are significant threats to the persistence of this DPS.
Directed take of eggs is a known ongoing problem in the Central West Pacific in the CNMI, FSM, Guam, Kiribati (Gilbert Islands chain), Papua, Papua New Guinea, Marshall Islands, and Palau (Eckert, 1993; Guilbeaux, 2001; Hitipeuw and Maturbongs, 2002; Philip, 2002). In addition to the collection of eggs from nesting beaches, the killing of nesting females continues to threaten the stability of green turtle populations. Ongoing harvest of nesting adults has been documented in the CNMI (Palacios, 2012a), FSM (Cruce, 2009), Guam (Cummings, 2002), Papua (Hitipeuw and Maturbongs, 2002), Papua New Guinea (Maison
Green turtles have long been harvested for their meat in the Ogasawara Islands, and records show a rapid decline in the sea turtle population between 1880 and 1920 (Horikoshi
The potential effects of FP and endoparasites also exist for green turtles found in the Central West Pacific Ocean, but the impacts to the population are unknown.
The loss of eggs to non-human predators is a severe problem in some areas. These predators include domestic animals, such as cats, dogs, and pigs, as well as wild species such as rats, mongoose, birds, monitor lizards, snakes, and crabs, ants, and other invertebrates (Suganuma
Although disease and predation are known to occur, quantitative data are not sufficient to assess the degree of impact of these threats on the persistence of this DPS.
Regional and national legislation to conserve green turtles (often all sea turtles) exists throughout the range of the DPS. National protective legislation generally prohibits intentional killing, harassment, possession, trade, or attempts at these; however, a lack of or inadequate enforcement of these laws appears to be pervasive. The following countries have laws to protect green turtles: CNMI, FSM, Guam, Japan (Ogasawara Islands), Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and United States (Wake Island). In addition, at least 17 international treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms apply to the conservation of green turtles in the Central West Pacific DPS. These are implemented to various degrees throughout the range of the DPS. There are some national regulations, within this DPS, that specially address the harvest of green turtles while a few regulations are limited in that they only apply to turtles of certain sizes, times of years, or allow for harvest for tradition use.
On December 12, 2008, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission issued a Conservation and Management Measure (2008-03;
Additional regulatory mechanisms are not in place in many countries within this DPS to address the major threat of bycatch within this DPS. It is unlikely that bycatch mortality can be sufficiently reduced across the range of the DPS in the near future because of the diversity and magnitude of the fisheries operating in the DPS, the lack of comprehensive information on fishing distribution and effort, limitations on implementing demonstrated effective conservation measures, geopolitical complexities, limitations on enforcement capacity, and lack of availability of comprehensive bycatch reduction technologies. Although conservation efforts to protect some nesting beaches are underway, more widespread and consistent protection would speed recovery. Some regulatory mechanisms, including laws and international treaties, are not realizing their full potential because they are not enforced adequately, or do not apply in all countries occupied by the DPS.
The Status Review revealed a lack of existing regulatory mechanisms to address coastal development, pollution, sea level rise, and effects of climate change that continue to contribute to the extinction risk of this DPS.
Incidental capture in artisanal and commercial fisheries is a threat to the survival of green turtles in the Central West Pacific. Sea turtles may be caught in longline, pole and line, and purse seine fisheries.
Within the Marshall Islands, Palau, the FSM, and the Solomon Islands, a purse-seine fishery for tuna and a significant longline fishery operate, and sea turtles have been captured in both fisheries with green turtle mortality occurring (Oceanic Fisheries Programme, 2001; McCoy, 2003; Hay and Sablan-Zebedy, 2005; McCoy, 2007a; McCoy, 2007b; Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, 2008).
Numerous subsistence and small-scale commercial fishing operations occur along Saipan's western coast and along both the Rota and Tinian coasts (CNMI Coastal Resources Management Office, 2011). Incidental catch of turtles in Guam's coastal waters by commercial fishing vessels likely also occurs (NMFS
The impacts of vessel strikes in the Central West Pacific are unknown, but not thought to be of great consequence, except possibly in Palau where high speed skiffs constantly travel throughout the lagoon south of the main islands (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). However, green turtles have been documented as occasionally being hit by boats in Guam (Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources, 2012).
In the FSM, debris is dumped freely and frequently off boats and ships (including government ships). Landfill areas are practically nonexistent in the outer islands and have not been addressed adequately on Yap proper or on Chuuk and Pohnpei. The volume of imported goods (including plastic and paper packaging) appears to be increasing (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). In Palau, entanglement in abandoned fishing nets has been identified as a threat to sea turtles (Eberdong and Klain, 2008). In the Marshall Islands, debris and garbage disposal in coastal waters is a serious problem on Majuro Atoll and Ebete Island (Kwajalein Atoll), both of which have inadequate space, earth cover, and shore protection for sanitary landfills. This problem also exists to a lesser extent at Daliet Atoll (NMFS and USFWS, 1998).
A study of the gastrointestinal tracts of 36 slaughtered green turtles in the Ogasawara Islands of Japan in 2001 revealed the presence of marine debris (
Over the long term, Central West Pacific turtle populations could be affected by the alteration of thermal sand characteristics (from global warming), resulting in the reduction or cessation of male hatchling production (Camiñas, 2004; Hawkes
Natural environmental events such as cyclones and hurricanes may affect green turtles in the Central West Pacific DPS. These storm events have been shown to cause severe beach erosion with likely negative effects on hatching success at many green turtle nesting beaches, especially in areas already prone to erosion. Shoreline erosion occurs naturally on many islands in the atolls of the Marshall Islands due to storms, sea level rise from the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, and currents (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). Some erosion of nesting beaches at Oroluk was reported in 1990 after passage of Typhoon Owen (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). However, effects of these natural events may be exacerbated by climate change. While sea turtles have survived past eras that have included significant temperature fluctuations, future climate change is expected to happen at unprecedented rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly they may face local to widespread extirpations (Hawkes
In summary, within Factor E, we find that fishery bycatch continues to threaten this DPS. In addition, changes likely to result from climate change and natural disasters are increasing threats to this DPS.
Very few areas that host important green turtle nesting or foraging aggregations have been designated as protected areas within the Central West Pacific. However, at least one country, Palau, has site-specific conservation for sea turtle habitat protection. Two nationally mandated protected areas, Ngerukewid Islands Wildlife Preserve and Ngerumekaol Spawning Area, exist within Koror State, and restrictions are placed on entry and fishing within established boundaries.
Marine debris is a problem on some green turtle nesting beaches and foraging areas in the Central West Pacific, in particular on the nesting beaches of the CNMI (Palacios, 2012a; 2012b) and in the nearshore foraging areas of the FSM, Marshall Islands, and Palau (NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Eberdong and Klain, 2008). Organized beach clean-ups on some CMNI beaches have been conducted to help mitigate this impact (Palacios, 2012b).
Overall, it appears that international and national laws to protect green turtles may be insufficient or not implemented effectively to address the needs of green turtles in the Central West Pacific. This minimizes the potential success of existing conservation efforts.
The Central West Pacific DPS is characterized by a relatively small nesting population spread across a relatively expansive area roughly 2,500 miles wide (Palau to the Marshall Islands) and 2,500 miles long (Ogasawara, Japan to the Solomon Islands). This DPS is dominated by insular nesting. Fifty-one known nesting sites were analyzed, although many had very old data (20-30 years old). Sixteen sites were identified but numbers of nesting females were “unquantified,” and another 21 had fewer than 100 nesting females. Only two sites had more than 1,000 nesting females (1,412 and 1,301). Further study of this DPS would improve our understanding of it.
The limited available information on trends suggests a nesting population decrease in some areas, an increase in one Japanese nesting site, and unknown trends in others. The second largest nesting site in this DPS (Chichijima, Japan) shows positive growth. The dispersed location of nesting sites and lack of concentration of nesting provides a level of habitat diversity and population resilience which reduces
Human populations are growing rapidly in many areas of the insular Pacific and this expansion is accompanied by threats to green turtle nesting habitat resulting from coastal development and construction, beachfront lighting, degradation of waters and seagrass beds off of populated areas, and sand extraction. Destructive fishing methods (use of dynamite and poisons) not only incidentally capture green turtles, but also deplete invertebrate and fish populations and thus alter ecosystem dynamics. Fishery bycatch, particularly bycatch mortality of green turtles from longline, pole and line, and purse seine fisheries, continue as threats to this DPS. In addition, legal and illegal harvest of green turtles and eggs for human consumption remains a significant threat in many areas of this DPS. Finally, changes likely to result from climate change and natural disasters could have profound long-term impacts on green turtle nesting in the Central West Pacific.
Although regulatory mechanisms are in place that should address direct and incidental take of Central West Pacific green turtles, these regulatory mechanisms are insufficient or are not being implemented effectively to address the population trajectories of green turtles.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the Central West Pacific DPS as endangered. Based on its low nesting abundance and exposure to increasing threats, we find that this DPS is presently in danger of extinction throughout its range.
The range of the Southwest Pacific DPS extends from the western boundary of Torres Strait, to the eastern tip of Papua New Guinea and out to the offshore coordinate of 13° S., 171° E.; the eastern boundary runs from this point southeast to 40° S., 176° E.; the southern boundary runs along 40° S. from 142° E. to 176° E.; and the western boundary runs from 40° S., 142° E north to Australian coast then follows the coast northward to Torres Strait (Figure 2).
Green turtle nesting is widely dispersed throughout the Southwest Pacific Ocean at 12 total nesting sites, although it should be noted that, perhaps more so than in other DPSs, proximate nesting beaches were grouped for analysis because nesting populations are small, with the exception of a few sites, including Raine Island, where the majority (>90 percent) of the nesting in the northern GBR occurs. While it would be possible to split the nesting aggregations into more than 100 different sites, because many of the most recent estimates are aggregated (Limpus, 2009), we followed this tendency and aggregated nesting within broad regional areas. The bulk of this DPS nests within Australia's Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and eastern Torres Strait. The northern GBR and Torres Strait support some of the world's highest concentrations of nesting (Chaloupka
The Raine Island and Heron Island sites both have high inter-annual variability and slightly increasing linear trends. These were the only two nesting areas for which 15 or more years of recent data are available for annual nesting female abundance, one of the standards for performing a PVA in the Status Review. Both show a continued increasing trend, though the Raine Island PVA indicates that there is a 9.1 percent probability that this population will fall below the trend reference point (50 percent decline) at the end of 100 years, and a 0.4 percent probability that it will fall below the absolute abundance reference (100 females per year) at the end of 100 years. However, extra caution must be used when interpreting results of the Raine Island PVA, because it only represents females observed during one sampling event on one night. The Heron Island PVA indicates that there is a 17.5 percent probability that the magnitude of adult females associated with Heron Island nesting will fall below the trend reference point (50 percent decline) at the end of 100 years, and an 8.3 percent probability that this population will fall below the absolute abundance reference (100 females per year) at the end of 100 years. It should be noted that PVA modeling has important limitations, and does not fully incorporate other key elements critical to the decision making process such as spatial structure or threats. It assumes all environmental and anthropogenic pressures will remain constant in the forecast period and it relies on nesting data alone.
Although long robust time series are not available for New Caledonia, recent and historical accounts do not suggest a significant decline in abundance of green turtles nesting in New Caledonia (Maison
With regard to spatial structure, genetic sampling in the Southwest Pacific DPS has been extensive for larger nesting sites along the GBR, the Coral Sea, and New Caledonia; however, there are several smaller nesting sites in this region that still need to be sampled (
With regard to diversity and resilience, nesting beach monitoring along with flipper and satellite tagging show the spatial structure of this DPS is largely consistent with viable populations. Nesting can occur year-round in the most northerly nesting sites, but a distinct peak occurs in late December to early January for all Australian nesting sites. Foraging is widely dispersed throughout the range of this DPS (Limpus, 2009). There are various factors that lead to resilience in nesting in the Southwest Pacific DPS: it is widely dispersed throughout the region, there is more than one major nesting site, there is evidence of some connectivity between nesting sites within each of the four regional stocks but no connectivity among regional stocks, and there is continental and insular nesting. Nesting, however, is not evenly distributed throughout the range of the DPS, and some of the densest nesting occurs on Raine Island, which has habitat-based threats.
Destruction and modification of green turtle nesting habitat in the Southwest Pacific DPS result from beach erosion, beach pollution, removal of native vegetation, and planting of non-native vegetation, as well as natural environmental change (Limpus, 2009). Coastal development and construction, placement of erosion control structures and other barriers to nesting, and vehicular traffic minimally impact green turtles in this DPS (Limpus, 2009). Artificial light levels have increased significantly for green turtles in minor nesting sites of the northern GBR and remained relatively constant for the mainland of Australia (part of southern GBR) south of Gladstone (Kamrowski
Threats to habitat in the neritic and/or oceanic zones in the Southwest Pacific DPS include fishing practices, channel dredging, and marine pollution, although the internesting habitat adjacent to the nesting sites with the highest documented nesting levels in this DPS is protected by the Great Barrier Reef Coastal Marine Park and the adjacent Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Limpus, 2009). Protection for marine turtles in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area has been increasing since the mid-1990s (Dryden
In summary, we find that the Southwest Pacific DPS of the green turtle is negatively affected by ongoing changes in both its terrestrial and marine habitats as a result of land and water use practices as considered above in Factor A. Groundwater intrusion on high density beaches, artificial lighting, fishery practices, channel dredging, and marine pollution are continual threats to the persistence of this DPS.
Southwest Pacific DPS turtles are vulnerable to harvest throughout Australia and neighboring countries such as New Caledonia, Fiji, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, and Indonesia (Limpus, 2009). Cumulative annual harvest of green turtles that nest in Australia may be in the tens of thousands, and it appears likely that historical native harvest may have been in the same order of magnitude (Limpus, 2009). The Australian Native Title Act (1993) gives Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders a legal right to hunt sea turtles in Australia for traditional, communal, non-commercial purposes (Limpus, 2009). Although indigenous groups, governments, wildlife managers and scientists work together with the aim of sustainably managing turtle resources (Maison
Low levels of FP-associated turtle herpes virus is common in green turtles in some but not all semi-enclosed waters like Moreton Bay and Repulse Bay in Australia, more infrequent in nearshore open waters, and rare in off-shore coral reef habitats (Limpus, 2009). Mortality and recovery rates from this virus are not quantified but stranded, infected turtles are regularly encountered in south Queensland (Limpus, 2009).
Primary hatchling and egg predators of this DPS include crabs, birds, fish, and mammals. The magnitude of egg predation is not well documented, but within Australia the highest levels of vertebrate predation on eggs occur in other species, primarily loggerheads (Environment Australia, 2003). In Vanuatu, nest predation by feral dogs is a primary threat (Maison
Although disease and predation are known to occur, quantitative data are not sufficient to assess the degree of impact of these threats on the persistence of this DPS.
Regulatory mechanisms are in place throughout the range of the DPS that address the direct capture of green turtles within this DPS. There are regulations, within this DPS, that specially address the harvest of green turtles while a few regulations are limited in that they only apply to certain times of year or allow for traditional use. Australia, New Caledonia and Vanuatu, the only countries with nesting aside from the Coral Sea Islands, which are a territory of Australia, have laws to protect green turtles. National protective legislation generally regulates intentional killing, possession, and trade (Limpus, 2009; Maison
The majority of nesting beaches (and often the associated internesting habitat) are protected in Australia, which is the country with the vast majority of the known nesting.
In Australia, the conservation of green turtles is governed by a variety of national and territorial legislation. Conservation began with 1932 harvest restrictions on turtles and eggs in Queensland in October and November, south of 17° S., and by 1968 the restriction extended all year long for all of Queensland (Limpus, 2009). As described in the preceding section, other conservation efforts include sweeping take prohibitions, implementation of bycatch reduction devices and safer dredging practices, improvement of shark control devices, and safer dredging practices, and the development of community based management plans with Indigenous groups. Australia has undertaken extensive marine spatial planning to protect nesting turtles and internesting habitat surrounding important nesting sites. The GBR's listing on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's World Heritage List in 1981 has increased the protection of habitats within the GBR World Heritage Area (Dryden
In New Caledonia, 1985 fishery regulations contained some regional sea turtle conservation measures, and these were expanded in 2008 to include the EEZ, the Main Island, and remote islands (Maison
There are several regulatory mechanisms in place that should address incidental take of green turtles within this DPS; however, these regulatory mechanisms are not realizing their full potential because they are not enforced at the local level. The analysis of these existing regulatory mechanisms assumed that all would remain in place at their current levels.
The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to address impacts to nesting beach habitat and overutilization is a continuing concern for this DPS. Other threats with inadequate regulatory mechanisms include incidental bycatch in fishing gear, boat strikes, port dredging, debris, national defense, and toxic compounds. Lack of implementation or enforcement by some nations renders regulatory mechanisms less effective than if they were implemented in a more consistent manner across the target region. It is unlikely that bycatch mortality can be sufficiently reduced across the range of the DPS in the near future because of the diversity and magnitude of the fisheries operating in the DPS, the lack of comprehensive information on fishing distribution and effort, limitations on implementing demonstrated effective conservation measures, geopolitical complexities, limitations on enforcement capacity, and lack of availability of comprehensive bycatch reduction technologies.
The Status Review did not reveal regulatory mechanisms in place to specifically address threats to nesting beaches, eggs, hatchlings, juveniles, and adults through harvest and incidental harm occur throughout the range of the Southwest Pacific DPS. Some threats, such as inundation of nests at Raine Island and sea level rise, cannot be controlled through individual national legislation and persist as a threat to this DPS.
Incidental capture in artisanal and commercial fisheries is a threat to the survival of green turtles in the Southwest Pacific Ocean. The primary gear types involved in these interactions include trawl fisheries, longlines, drift nets, and set nets. These are employed by both artisanal and industrial fleets, and target a wide variety of species including prawns, crabs, sardines, and large pelagic fish.
Nesting turtles of the Southwest Pacific DPS are vulnerable to the Queensland East Coast Trawl Fisheries and the Torres Strait Prawn Fishery, and to the extent other turtles forage west of Torres Strait, they are also vulnerable (Limpus, 2009). In 2000, the use of TEDs in the Northern Australian Prawn Fishery became mandatory, due in part to several factors: (1) Objectives of the Australian Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles, (2) requirements of the Australian Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act for Commonwealth fisheries to become ecologically sustainable, and (3) the 1996 U.S. import embargo on wild-caught prawns taken in a fishery without adequate turtle bycatch management practices (Robins
Australian and international longline fisheries capture green turtles. Precise estimates of international capture of Southwest Pacific Ocean DPS green turtles by the international longline fleet are not available, but they are thought to be larger than the Australian component (DEWHA, 2010). In addition to threats from prawn trawls, green turtles may face threats from other fishing gear (summarized from Limpus, 2009). Take of green turtles in gill nets (targeting barramundi, salmon, mackerel, and shark) in Queensland and the Northern Territory has been observed but not quantified. Untended “ghost” fishing gear that has been intentionally discarded or lost due to weather conditions may entangle and kill many hundreds of green turtles annually.
Green turtles are captured in shark control programs, but protocols are in place to reduce the impact. The Queensland Shark Control Program is managed by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (Limpus, 2009) and has been operating since 1962 (Gribble
The magnitude of mortality from boat strikes may be in the high tens to low hundreds per year in Queensland (Limpus, 2009). This threat affects juvenile and adult turtles and may increase with increasing high-speed boat traffic in coastal waters. The magnitude of mortality from port dredging in Queensland may be in the order of tens of turtles or less per year (Limpus, 2009).
Toxic compounds and bioaccumulative chemicals threaten green turtles in the Southwest Pacific DPS. Poor health conditions (debilitation and death) have been reported in the southern Gulf of Carpentaria for green turtles, many of which had unusual black fat (Kwan and Bell, 2003; Limpus, 2009). Heavy metal concentrations have also been reported in Australia (Dight and Gladstone, 1994; Reiner, 1994; Gordon
Green turtle populations could be affected by the effects of climate change on nesting grounds (Fuentes
In a study of the northern GBR nesting assemblages, Bramble Cay and Milman Islet were vulnerable to sea-level rise, and almost all sites in the study were expected to be vulnerable to increased temperatures by 2070 (Fuentes
The Southwest Pacific DPS contains some atolls, as well as coral reef areas that share some ecological characteristics with atolls. Barnett and Adger (2003) state that coral reefs, which are essential to the formation and maintenance of the islets located around the rim of an atoll, are highly sensitive to sudden changes in sea-surface temperature. Thus, climate change impacts could have long-term impacts on green turtle ecology in the Southwest Pacific DPS, but it is not possible to project the impacts at this point in time.
In summary, within Factor E, we find that fishery bycatch that occurs throughout the range of the DPS, particularly bycatch mortality of green turtles from pelagic longline, drift nets, set net, and trawl fisheries, is a continued risk to this DPS. Additional threats from boat strikes, marine pollution, changes likely to result from climate change, and cyclonic storm events are pose an increasing risk to the persistence of this DPS.
Conservation efforts for the Southwest Pacific DPS have resulted in sweeping take prohibitions, implementation of bycatch reduction devices, improvement of shark control devices, and safer dredging practices. Australia, in particular, has undertaken extensive marine spatial planning to protect nesting turtles and internesting habitat surrounding some of the largest and most important nesting sites in the DPS.
The Southwest Pacific DPS is characterized by relatively high levels of green turtle nesting abundance (>80,000 nesting females) and contains the GBR, the largest coral reef system in the world, as well as continental coastline, islands, and atolls. The trends in nesting female abundance at the two index beaches (Raine Island and Heron Island, Australia) are stable or increasing. The spatial structure of this DPS extends over a large geographic area, with several large nesting sites spread within the range of this DPS, and includes both continental and insular nesting, thereby providing a level of habitat diversity and population resilience. This region has high genetic diversity resulting from a mix of highly divergent lineages, some of which are among the oldest lineages found in
The threats to this Southwest Pacific DPS include directed harvest, incidental bycatch in fisheries, shark control programs, boat strikes, port dredging, debris, activities associated with national defense, disease, predation, toxic compounds, and climate change. Conservation efforts have resulted in sweeping take prohibitions, implementation of bycatch reduction devices, improvement of shark control devices, and safer dredging practices. Australia, in particular, has undertaken extensive marine spatial planning to protect nesting turtles and internesting habitat surrounding important nesting sites. In the southern GBR threats are well managed, harvest is low, and the population increasing; however, in the northern GBR there are concerns for Raine Island and harvest is a cause for concern. In the Coral Sea there are few known threats and it is remote and well managed from human threats. Although the DPS shows strength in many of the critical elements, there are still concerns about numerous threats including climate change and habitat degradation.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the Southwest Pacific DPS as threatened. We do not find the DPS to be in danger of extinction presently because of high nesting abundance and geographically widespread nesting at a diversity of sites; however, the continued threats are likely to endanger the DPS within the foreseeable future.
The range of the Central South Pacific DPS extends north and east of New Zealand to include a longitudinal expanse of 7,500 km—from Easter Island, Chile in the east to Fiji in the west, and encompasses American Samoa, French Polynesia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Tokelau, Tonga, and Tuvalu. Its open ocean polygonal boundary endpoints are (clockwise from the northwest-most extent): 9° N., 175° W. to 9° N., 125° W. to 40° S., 96° W. to 40° S., 176° E., to 13° S., 171° E., and back to 9° N., 175° W. (Figure 2).
Nesting occurs sporadically throughout the geographic distribution
Based on available data, we estimate there are approximately 2,800 nesting females in this DPS at 59 nesting sites. The most abundant nesting area was Scilly Atoll, French Polynesia, which in the early 1990s was estimated to host 300-400 nesting females annually (Balazs
No long-term monitoring programs are currently available at beaches in this population, and no single site has had standardized surveys for even 5 continuous years. Most nesting areas are in remote, low-lying atolls that are logistically difficult to access. Partial and inconsistent monitoring from the largest nesting site in this DPS, Scilly Atoll, suggests significant nesting declines from persistent and illegal commercial harvesting (Petit, 2013). Historically, 100-500 females nested annually at Canton Island, Kiribati (Balazs, 1975b) but, as of 2002, it had an estimated 29 nesting females. Nesting abundance is reported to be stable to increasing at Tongareva Atoll (White and Galbraith, 2013). It is also reported to be stable to increasing at Rose Atoll, Swains Atoll, Tetiaroa, Tikehau, and Maiao. However, these sites are of relatively low abundance and in sum represent less than 16 percent of the population abundance at Scilly Atoll alone.
With regard to spatial structure, genetic sampling in the Central South Pacific is limited and many of the small isolated nesting sites that characterize this region have not been covered. Mitochondrial DNA studies indicate there are at least two genetic stocks in American Samoa and French Polynesia (Dutton
With regard to diversity and resilience, the Central South Pacific has a broad geographical area, but the nesting sites themselves exhibit little diversity. Most nesting sites are located in low-lying coral atolls or oceanic islands and thus are subject to loss of habitat due to sea level rise. Local nesting density is sparse spatially, typically spread over >10 km stretches of beach and is also low in terms of abundance. Only one nesting site (Scilly Atoll with 1,050 females; Balazs
Nesting in the Central South Pacific DPS is geographically widespread with the majority of nesting sites being remote and not easily accessed, and at low-lying oceanic islands or coral atolls. The largest nesting site for this DPS is believed to be at Scilly Atoll in French Polynesia. Balazs
In the populated islands of American Samoa, such as Tutuila, continuous incremental loss of habitat has occurred due to varied activities of human populations (Tuato'o-Bartley
In Samoa, degradation of habitat through coastal development and natural disasters as cited in SPREP (SPREP, 2012) remains a threat (J. Ward, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Samoa, pers. comm., 2013).
In Kiribati, historical destruction (bulldozing) of the vegetation zone next to the nesting beach on Canton Island in the Phoenix Islands occurred during World War II and may have negatively affected the availability of a portion of nesting beach area (Balazs, 1975). The remoteness of these islands and minimal amount of study of sea turtles in this area makes recent information on nesting beach condition and threats difficult to obtain.
In the Cook Islands, the major nesting site for green turtles, Tongareva Atoll, is uninhabited and there are not likely threats related to development or human disturbance (White, 2012b). However, elsewhere in the Cook Islands, sand extraction (for building purposes) and building developments are reported as potential threats to sea turtles; for instance, the best potential site at Tauhunu motu on Manihiki appears to be no longer used for nesting (White, 2012a). Weaver (1996) notes that sea turtles are negatively affected in Fiji by modification of nesting beaches. Coastal erosion in Tonga and Tuvalu is reported
Little is known regarding the status of the foraging habitat and threats found in French Polynesia (Balazs
Fiji appears to be an important foraging area for green turtles of this DPS. Sea turtles have been negatively affected by alteration and degradation of foraging habitat and to some extent pollution or degradation of nearshore ecosystems (Batibasaga
In Tonga, marine habitat is being affected by anthropogenic activities. Heavy sedimentation and poor water quality have killed patch reefs; high nutrients and high turbidity are negatively impacting seagrasses; and human activities are negatively impacting mangroves (Prescott
Although Palmyra Atoll is now protected, it was altered by U.S. military activities during World War II through dredging, connection, and expansion of islets (Sterling
In summary, as to Factor A, we find that the Central South Pacific DPS of the green turtle is negatively affected by ongoing changes in both its terrestrial and marine habitats as a result of land and water use practices. Pollution persists and loss of beach due to coastal development is significant threats to this DPS.
Human consumption has had a significant impact on green turtles in the Central South Pacific DPS. Hirth and Rohovit (1992) report that exploitation of green turtles for eggs, meat, and parts has occurred throughout the South Pacific Region, including American Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji Islands, French Polynesia, and Kiribati. Allen (2007) notes that in Remote Oceania (which includes this DPS) sea turtles were important in traditional societies but, despite this, have experienced severe declines since human colonization approximately 2,800 years ago. At western contact, some of the islands supported sizable human populations resulting in intense pressures on local coastal fisheries.
At Scilly Atoll in French Polynesia local residents (approximately 20 to 40 people) are allowed to take 50 adults per year from a nesting population that could be as low as 300-400 (M. S. Allen, 2007; Balazs
Directed take in the marine environment has been a significant source of mortality in American Samoa, and turtle populations have seriously declined (Tuato'o-Bartley
Turtles have been traditionally harvested for food and shells in the country of Samoa, and over-exploitation of turtles has negatively affected local populations (Government of Samoa, 1998). Unsustainable harvest (direct take for meat) remains a major threat to green turtles in Samoa (J. Ward, Government of Samoa, pers. comm. 2013).
In Fiji, Weaver (1996) identified the contemporary harvest and consumption of turtles by humans for eggs, meat, and shells as a significant threat for sea turtles. This includes commercial harvest, as well as subsistence and ceremonial harvest. In Kiribati (
In Tonga, Bell
In Tuvalu, harvest of sea turtles for their meat has been cited as a major threat (Alefaio and Alefaio, 2006; Ono and Addison, 2009). In the Cook Islands, turtles are sometimes killed during nesting at Palmerston and Rakahanga, while nesting and fishing on Nassau, and while nesting at Manihiki, Tongareva, and probably at other atolls (White, 2012). In Tokelau, Balazs (1983) reported human take of both sea turtle eggs from nests and adult males and females while copulating, nesting, or swimming (by harpoon).
In summary, within Factor B current legal and illegal collection of eggs and harvest of turtles throughout the Central South Pacific DPS persist as a threat to this DPS. The threat to the stability of green turtle populations posed by harvesting nesting females is particularly significant due to the small number of nesting females within this DPS.
While FP is recorded elsewhere in the Pacific, it does not appear to be a threat in the Central South Pacific DPS (Utzurrum, 2002; A. Tagarino, American Samoa DMWR, pers. comm., 2013). The best available data suggest that current nest and hatchling predation on several Central South Pacific DPS nesting beaches and in-water habitats is a potential threat to this DPS.
Predation of green turtles (
In Samoa, feral animal predation on turtle nests and eggs remains a threat (SPREP, 2012; J. Ward, Government of Samoa, pers. comm., 2013). In other areas, predation is likely a contributing threat to green turtles. Introduced animals, including feral cats, rats, and feral pigs, are reported problems for wildlife (Teeb'aki, 1992) and may threaten green turtles on certain islands in Kiribati such as Kiritimati. In Tokelau, identified predators that may constitute a terrestrial threat to turtles include hermit crabs, ghost crabs, Polynesian rats, frigate birds (
Although predation is known to occur, quantitative data are not sufficient to assess the degree of impact of these threats on the persistence of this DPS.
Lack of regulatory mechanisms and/or adequate implementation and enforcement is a threat to the Central South Pacific DPS. The analysis of these existing regulatory mechanisms assumed that all would remain in place at their current levels. Regulatory mechanisms that address the direct capture of green turtles for most of the countries within this DPS specifically address the harvest of green turtles, while a few regulations are limited in that they only apply during certain times of the year or allow for traditional harvest.
Numerous countries have reserves (French Polynesia, Kiribati, Samoa, and the U.S. Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument), national legislation, and/or local regulations protecting turtles. These include the foreign Cook Islands, Fiji, French Polynesia, Kiribati, Pitcairn Islands, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, and the U.S. territories of Wake, Baker, Howland and Jarvis Islands, Kingman Reef and Palmyra Atoll. In some places such as Tokelau and Wallis and Futuna, information on turtle protection was either unclear or could not be found. At least 17 international treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms apply to the conservation of green turtles in the Central South Pacific DPS.
Green turtles in American Samoa are fully protected under the ESA. Green turtles are also protected by the Fishing and Hunting Regulations for American Samoa (24.0934), which prohibit the import, export, sale, possession, transport, or trade of sea turtles or their parts and take (as defined by the ESA) and carry additional penalties for violations at the local government level (Maison
Regulatory mechanisms are apparently inadequate to curb a continued loss of nesting habitat and degradation of foraging habitat due to human activities and coastal development on populated islands of American Samoa, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, Fiji, and the Cook Islands. Turtles continue to be harvested for food and shells, and are used in commercial, subsistence, and ceremonial capacities. Rudrud (2010) suggests that traditional laws in Polynesia may have historically limited green turtle consumption to certain people (chiefs, priests) or special ceremonies. However, as the societies of this region have been affected by Western culture and modernization of traditions have been altered; traditional laws have lost their effectiveness in limiting negative effects of harvest on sea turtles.
There are protected areas, within this DPS, that should provide some level of protection for green turtles and their habitat; however the effectiveness of these monuments for this species is unknown. The Status Review did not reveal regulatory mechanisms in place to specifically address coastal development, marine pollution, sea level rise, and effects of climate change that continue to contribute to the extinction risk of this DPS.
Incidental capture in artisanal and commercial fisheries is a significant threat to the survival of green sea turtles throughout the Central South Pacific DPS. The primary gear types involved in these interactions include longlines and nets.
Incidental capture in line, trap, or net fisheries presents a threat to sea turtles in American Samoa (Tagarino, 2011). Subsistence gill nets have been known to occasionally catch green turtles. Additionally, longline fishing is considered a threat to Central South Pacific green turtles. In 2010, the American Samoa longline fishery was estimated to have interacted with an average of 33 green turtles annually, with a 92 percent mortality rate, triggering reinitiation of a section 7 consultation; the current incidental take statement allows 45 green sea turtle interactions (41 mortalities) every three years (
In Fiji, green turtles are killed in commercial fishing nets; however, the exact extent and intensity of this threat is unknown (Rupeni
In the Cook Islands, longline fishery regulations require fishers to adopt the use of circle hooks and to follow “releasing hooked turtles” guidelines (Goodwin, 2008), although it is unclear how effective these regulations are. McCoy (2008) suggests that sea turtle bycatch is occurring in tuna fisheries in the Cook Islands; however, no information is provided on possible extent of sea turtle take or the species that are possibly taken.
Direct or indirect disposal of anthropogenic waste introduces potentially lethal materials into green turtle foraging habitats. Green turtles will ingest plastic, monofilament fishing line, and other marine debris (Bjorndal
Pago Pago Harbor in American Samoa is seriously polluted, and uncontrolled effluent contaminants have impaired water quality in some coastal waters (Aeby
Ship groundings (
In Fiji, Weaver (1996) identified potential threats to sea turtles from heavy metals and industrial waste, organic loadings in coastal areas, plastic bags, and leachate poisoning of seagrass foraging areas. In the Cook Islands, White (2012) noted possible issues with oil, tar, or toxic chemicals and terrestrial run-off into lagoons at Rarotonga, and Bradshaw and Bradshaw (2012) note pollution (
Climate change has the potential to greatly affect green turtles. Potential impacts of climate change on green turtles include loss of beach habitat from rising sea levels, repeated inundation of nests, skewed hatchling sex ratios from rising incubation temperatures, and abrupt disruption of ocean currents used for natural dispersal (Fish
A recent study of 27 atoll islands in the central Pacific (including Kiribati and Tuvalu), demonstrated that 14 percent of islands decreased in area over a 19-60 year time span (Webb and Kench, 2010). This occurred in a region considered most vulnerable to sea-level rise (Nicholls and Cazenave, 2010) during a period in which sea-levels rose 2 mm per year.
Catastrophic natural environmental events, such as cyclones or hurricanes, may affect green turtles in the Central South Pacific Ocean, and may exacerbate issues such as decreased available habitat due to sea level rise. These types of events may disrupt green turtle nesting activity (Van Houtan and Bass, 2007), even if just on a temporary scale.
In summary, within Factor E, we find that incidental fishery bycatch, interactions with recreational and commercial vessels, marine pollution as well as the increasing threat of climate change, and major storm events are expected to be an increasing threat to the persistence of this DPS.
There are many islands and atolls in the range of this DPS spread across an expansive area. Conservation efforts, such as establishment of protected areas, exist that are beneficial to green turtles.
It is unclear how well conservation efforts such as protected areas and the national legislation relating to green turtles are working. It appears that the remoteness of some of the areas is providing the most conservation protection for certain threats.
The Central South Pacific DPS is characterized by geographically widespread nesting at very low levels of abundance, mostly in remote low-lying oceanic atolls. Nesting is reported in 57 different locations, although some abundance numbers are 20 years old or older. By far the highest nesting abundance estimate is from Scilly Atoll, French Polynesia (1,050 nesting females), but this estimate is from 1991 data and abundance of nesting females has reportedly significantly declined in the past 30 years as a result of commercial exploitation. There are also no long-term monitoring programs that have been active in this DPS for even a 5-year period. While the dispersed location of nesting sites might provide a level of habitat diversity and population resilience which reduces overall extinction risk, this contribution is reduced by the low population size of these sites (only Scilly Atoll has over 225 nesting females) and overall population size of fewer than 3,000 nesting females.
Chronic and persistent illegal harvest is a concern in the Central South Pacific DPS, and sea level rise is a threat that is expected to increase in the future. Indeed, climate change may affect this DPS more than any other because nearly all nesting sites exist on low-lying atolls. Sea level rise is expected to exacerbate beach erosion, inundations, and storm surge on small islands (IPCC, 2007). The loss of habitat as a result of climate change could be accelerated due to a combination of other environmental and oceanographic changes such as an increase in the intensity of storms and/or changes in prevailing currents, both of which could lead to increased beach loss via erosion (Kennedy
For the above reasons, we propose to list the Central South Pacific DPS as endangered. Based on its low nesting abundance and exposure to increasing threats, we find that this DPS is presently in danger of extinction throughout its range.
The range of the Central North Pacific DPS covers the Hawaiian Archipelago and Johnston Atoll. It is bounded by a four-sided polygon with open ocean extents reaching to 41° N., 169° E. in the northwest corner, 41° N., 143° W. in the northeast, 9° N., 125° W. in southeast, and 9° N., 175° W. in the southwest (Figure 2). The Hawaiian Archipelago is the most geographically isolated island group on the planet. From 1965 to 2013, 17,536 green turtles were tagged, including all post-pelagic size classes from juveniles to adults. With only three exceptions, the 7,360 recaptures of these tagged turtles have been made within the Hawaiian Archipelago. The three outliers involved a recovery in Japan, one in the Marshall Islands and one in the Philippines.
The principal nesting site for green turtles in the Central North Pacific DPS is FFS, where 96 percent of the population (3,710 of 3,846 nesting females) currently nests (Balazs, 1980; Lipman and Balazs, 1983). However, nesting was historically abundant at
Since nesting surveys were initiated in 1973, there has been a marked increase in annual green turtle nesting at East Island, FFS, where approximately 50 percent of the nesting on FFS occurs (Balazs and Chaloupka, 2004, 2006). During the first 5 years of monitoring (1973-1977), the mean annual nesting abundance was 83 females, and during the most recent 5 years of monitoring (2009-2012), the mean annual nesting abundance was 464 females (Balazs and Chaloupka, 2006; G. Balazs, NMFS, unpublished data). This increase over the last 40 years corresponds to an annual increase of 4.8 percent.
Information on in-water abundance trends is consistent with the increase in nesting (Balazs, 2000; Balazs
With regard to spatial structure, genetic sampling in the Central North Pacific DPS has been extensive and representative, given that there are few nesting populations in this region. Results of mtDNA analysis indicate a low level of spatial structure with regard to minor nesting around the MHI and the NWHI, and the same haplotypes occur throughout the range of the DPS. Within the NWHI, studies show no significant differentiation (based on mtDNA haplotype frequency) between FFS and Laysan Island (P. Dutton, NMFS, pers. comm., 2013). An analysis by Frey
With regard to diversity and resilience, because nesting in the Central North Pacific DPS is unusually concentrated at one site, there is little diversity in nesting areas. Balazs (Balazs, 1980) reported that the distribution of green turtles in the Hawaiian Archipelago has been reduced within historical times, and Kittinger
In Hawai`i, most nesting currently occurs in the NWHI, although nesting is increasing in the MHI, as is basking of green turtles. Coastal development and construction, vehicular and pedestrian traffic, beach pollution, tourism, and other human related activities are current threats to nesting and basking habitat in the MHI. These threats will affect more green turtles in this DPS if nesting increases in the MHI. Human populations are growing rapidly in many areas of the insular Pacific, including Hawai`i, and this expansion is exerting increased pressure on limited island resources.
Climatic changes in the NWHI pose threats through reduction in area of nesting beaches critical to this DPS (Baker
Impacts to the quality of coastal habitats in the MHI are a threat to this DPS and are expected to continue and possibly increase with an increasing human population and annual influx of millions of tourists. Loss of foraging habitat or reduction in habitat quality in the MHI due to nearshore development is a threat to this DPS. Marina construction, beach development, siltation of forage areas, contamination of forage areas from anthropogenic activities, resort development or activities, increased vessel traffic, and other activities are all considered threats to this population and its habitat (Bowen
During the last century, habitat on Johnston Atoll was affected by military activities such as nuclear testing and chemical weapons incineration. The lingering effects of these activities
In summary, within Factor A, we find that the loss of nesting beach habitat is a threat to the DPS in the NWHI. We find that coastal development and construction, vehicular and pedestrian traffic, beach pollution, tourism, and other human related activities are threats in the MHI. Climate change, marina construction, contamination of forage areas from anthropogenic activities, resort development or activities, increased vessel traffic are significant, increasing threats posing a risk to the persistence of this DPS.
Harvest of green turtles has been illegal since green turtles were listed under the ESA in 1978. It is possible that human take today is underreported, as anecdotal information suggests that some degree of illegal take occurs throughout the MHI. The extent of such take is unknown; however, it is believed that current illegal harvest of green turtles for human consumption continues in a limited way, although Federal and State cooperative efforts and existing legislation appear to be minimizing the threat.
The FP disease affects green turtles found in the Central North Pacific Ocean (Francke
Ghost crabs (
Mongoose, rats, dogs, feral pigs, and cats—all introduced species—that exist on the MHI are known to prey on eggs and hatchlings, although the impact on the current low level of nesting is unclear (nesting in the MHI is extremely low compared to historical levels). If nesting in the MHI increases, the importance of the threat from these potential predators would increase.
Regulatory mechanisms that protect green turtles are in place and include State, Federal, and international laws. The analysis of these existing regulatory mechanisms assumed that all would remain in place at their current levels. Numerous Federal and State governmental and non-governmental efforts at public education, protection and monitoring of green turtles contribute to the conservation of the Central North Pacific DPS. At least 16 international treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms apply to the conservation of green turtles in the Central North Pacific.
Nesting occurs exclusively within the United States. Monitoring and protective efforts are ongoing for both nesting areas (in the NWHI and where nesting is occurring in the MHI) and in nearshore waters. Regulatory mechanisms in U.S. jurisdiction are in place through the ESA, MSA and the State of Hawai`i that currently address direct and incidental take of Central North Pacific green turtles, and these regulatory mechanisms have been an important factor in the encouraging trend in this DPS.
The Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument was established in January 2009, and is cooperatively managed by the Secretary of Commerce (NOAA) and the Secretary of the Interior (USFWS), with the exception of Wake Island and Johnston Atoll, which are currently managed by the Department of Defense. The areas extend 92.6 km from the mean low water lines around emergent islands and atolls and include green turtle habitat. Commercial fishing is prohibited within the limits of the Monument, and recreational fishing requires a permit. On September 27, 2014, President Obama issued Presidential Proclamation 9173 to expand the Pacific Remote Islands Monument to incorporate waters and submerged lands at Jarvis Island, Wake Island, and Johnston Atoll to the seaward limit of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Proclamation 9173 prohibits commercial fishing in expanded areas of the Monument, and directs the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce to ensure that recreational and non-commercial fishing continue to be managed as sustainable activities in the Monument. The protected areas provide some protection to sea turtles and their habitat through permitted access and its remoteness.
A commercial ban on turtle harvest was put into place by the State of Hawai`i in 1974, 4 years before the green turtle was listed under the ESA. Since 1978, green turtles have been protected by the ESA. They are also protected by the Hawai`i Revised Statutes, Chapter 195D (Hawai`i State Legislature, accessed Sept. 10, 2010) and Hawai`i Administrative Rules, 13-124 (Hawai`i Administrative Rules, accessed Sept. 10, 2010), which adopt the same definitions, status designations, and prohibitions as the ESA and carry additional penalties for violations at the State government level. These two statutes have been, and currently are, key tools in efforts to recover and protect this DPS, and both have provided for comprehensive protection and recovery activities that have been sufficiently effective to improve the status of green turtles in Hawai`i significantly. The ESA and Hawai`i statutes are not, however, redundant. For example, the ESA requires Federal agencies to consult with the Services on their actions that may affect green turtles.
Current monitoring, conservation efforts, and legal enforcement have been effective and promote the persistence of the Central North Pacific DPS, which occurs almost exclusively in U.S. waters. It is important to note, however, that the analysis by the SRT did not consider the scenario in which current laws or regulatory mechanisms were not continued. Under the ESA, regulatory measures provide protections that are not provided entirely by State protections. For instance, if the DPS was delisted and the protections of the ESA were no longer in place, many on-the-ground conservation and monitoring actions and, importantly, financial resources that are afforded by the ESA (
The threat of bycatch in international fisheries is not adequately regulated, although bycatch in domestic Federal fisheries has been addressed to a greater extent. In addition, some threats to the species, such as climate change, are either not able to be regulated under the ESA, or not regulated sufficiently to control or even slow the threat.
The Status Review did not reveal regulatory mechanisms in place to specifically address marine pollution, sea level rise, and effects of climate change that continue to contribute to the extinction risk of this DPS.
The SRT identified incidental capture in fisheries as a significant threat to green turtles of the Central North Pacific DPS. The primary gear types involved in these interactions include longlines and nets. These are employed by both artisanal and industrial fleets, and target a variety of species.
Pacific longline fisheries capture green turtles as bycatch in longline gear (line, hooks), and these interactions can result in mortality (NMFS, 2012). U.S. longline fisheries are required to comply with sea turtle mitigation measures (50 CFR 665.812), including the use of circle hooks, dehookers, line clippers, and crewmember training, that have reduced green sea turtle interactions to negligible levels. However, while exact numbers are not available, it is estimated that, at a minimum, 100 green turtles from the Central North Pacific DPS are captured and killed annually by foreign longlines (NMFS, 2012).
Interactions between Central North Pacific green turtles and nearshore fisheries in the MHI can result in entanglement, injury, and mortality. Balazs
Hook-and-line fishing from shore or boats also hooks and entangles green turtles (Francke
The ingestion of and entanglement in marine debris is another anthropogenic threat to Central North Pacific green turtles throughout their range. Marine debris is common in the MHI and a direct threat to sea turtles (Wedding and Friedlander, 2008). Stranding information for this DPS shows that entanglement in lost or discarded fishing line is one of the causes of green turtle strandings and mortality in the MHI. In the NWHI, marine debris is also a threat in the terrestrial and marine environment. In 1996, it was estimated that between 750 and 1,000 tons of marine debris were on reefs and beaches in the NWHI, and the source of much of the debris is fishing nets discarded or lost in the northeastern Pacific Ocean (Keller
As in other parts of the world, boating activities are a threat to turtles within this DPS (Francke
Vessel groundings (mechanical damage to habitat and reef-associated organisms) and related release of contaminants (
As in other areas of the world, climate change and sea level rise have the potential to negatively affect green turtles in the Central North Pacific DPS. Climate change influences on water temperatures, ocean acidification, sea level and related changes in coral reef habitat, wave climate and coastal shorelines are expected to continue (Friedlander
As temperatures increase, there is concern that incubation temperatures could reach levels that exceed the thermal tolerance for embryonic development, thus increasing embryo and hatchling mortality (Balazs and Kubis, 2007; Fuller
While sea turtles have survived past eras that have included significant temperature fluctuations, future climate change is expected to happen at unprecedented rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly they may face local to widespread extirpations (Hawkes
While the nesting population trajectory in the Central North Pacific DPS is positive and encouraging, the DPS exhibits moderately low levels of abundance (3,846 nesting females), and more than 96 percent of nesting occurs at one site in the NWHI (FFS). Therefore, survival of this DPS is currently highly dependent on successful nesting at FFS (Niethammer
Within Factor E, we find that incidental bycatch in fishing gear, marine pollution, interactions with recreational and commercial vessels, climate change, beach driving, and major storm events all negatively affect green turtles in the Central North Pacific DPS. The consideration of climate change, and the fact that the one isolated atoll, where approximately 96 percent of green turtles within this DPS nest, is extremely vulnerable to sea level rise, increase the risk of extinction for this DPS.
The State of Hawai`i's efforts to conserve green turtles include: Wildlife regulations; coordination of stranding response and specimen storage on the islands of Maui, Hawai`i, and Kaua`i; issuance and management of special activity permits; statewide outreach and education activities; and nest monitoring on Maui (Department of Land and Natural Resources, 2013). Hawai`i Division of Aquatic Resources staff responds to stranded turtle reports and issues special use permits to researchers and educators. The Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement investigates reports of illegal poaching, provides support and security at some nest sites and strandings, and addresses complaints from the public regarding turtle disturbances.
With regard to conservation areas, the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in the NWHI is a conservation area established in 2006 that encompasses coral reefs, islands and shallow water environments. It comprises several previously existing Federal conservation areas, including the NWHI Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve, Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge, NWHI Marine Refuge, State Seabird Sanctuary at Kure Atoll and the Battle of Midway National Memorial. The Monument is administered jointly by three co-trustees: NOAA, the USFWS, and the State of Hawai`i. The Monument's mission is to carry out seamless integrated management to ensure ecological integrity and achieve strong, long-term protection and perpetuation of NWHI ecosystems, Native Hawaiian culture, and heritage resources for current and future generations. Commercial fishing is prohibited in the Monument and all other human activities require a permit.
Overall, conservation efforts have been successful in this DPS, as exhibited by the increasing trend in the green turtle population.
The Central North Pacific DPS is characterized by geographically concentrated nesting (96 percent of nesting occurs at one location) and moderately low levels of abundance (3,846 nesting females). Such a low number is the result of chronic historical exploitation, which extirpated 80 percent of historically major nesting grounds (Kittinger
The Status Review indicates that the DPS shows strength in its population trend, but that there are concerns about overall abundance, spatial structure, and diversity/resilience. Indeed, in spite of the positive trends in the last few decades, the unprecedented concentration of nesting at one site and moderately low population size raise serious concerns about the resilience of this DPS, particularly its ability to adapt to future climate scenarios. Ninety-eight percent of the population nests are low lying atolls (96 percent nesting in a single low-lying atoll), making them extremely vulnerable to sea level rise—some effects of which have already been witnessed. Keller
In summary, despite an upward trend in population abundance, the Central North Pacific DPS is characterized by geographically concentrated nesting and low levels of abundance (3,846 nesting females). The lack of redundancy in nesting sites and the low nesting numbers at these sites lead to low resilience within this DPS. The consideration of climate change, and the fact that the one isolated atoll, where approximately 96 percent of green turtles within this DPS nest, is extremely vulnerable to sea level rise, increase the risk of extinction.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the Central North Pacific DPS as threatened. We do not find the DPS to be in danger of extinction presently because of the increasing nesting trend; however, the continued threats coupled with a small and narrowly distributed nesting population are likely to endanger the DPS within the foreseeable future.
The range of the East Pacific DPS extends from the California/Oregon border (41 °N) southward along the Pacific coast of the Americas to central Chile (40 °S). Green turtles originating from this DPS regularly strand along the shoreline of Oregon and Washington. The northern and southern boundaries of this DPS extend from the aforementioned locations in the United States and Chile to 142 °W and 96 °W, respectively. The offshore boundary of this DPS is a straight line between these two coordinates. This DPS encompasses the Revillagigedos Archipelago, Mexico and the Galápagos Archipelago, Ecuador (Figure 2). The East Pacific DPS also includes the Mexican Pacific coast breeding population, which is currently listed as endangered (43 FR 32800, July 28, 1978).
Green turtle nesting is widely dispersed in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. We identified 40 total nesting sites for which abundance information is available, although there are sporadic nesting events in other areas with undocumented abundance. The largest nesting aggregation is found in Colola, Michoacán, Mexico, with 11,588 nesting females, or nearly 58 percent of the total nesting population (Delgado-Trejo and Alvarado-Figueroa, 2012). The second largest site is in the Galápagos Islands, Ecuador, where nesting at the four primary nesting sites (Quinta Playa and Barahona (Isabela Island), Las Bachas (Santa Cruz Island), and Las Salinas (Baltras Island)) has been stable to slightly increasing since the late 1970s, and was last estimated at 3,603 nesting females in 2005 (Zàrate
Nesting at the largest beach in the range of this DPS (Colola, Michoacán, Mexico) has shown an upward trend since 1996. The observed increase at Colola may have resulted from the onset of nesting beach protection in 1979—as is suggested by the similarity in timing between the onset of beach conservation and the age-to-maturity for green turtles in Pacific Mexico. The initial upward turn in annual nesting was seen in 1996, about 17 years after the initiation of a nesting beach protection program (Cliffton
With regard to spatial structure, genetic sampling in the eastern Pacific has been extensive and the coverage in this region is substantial considering the relatively low population sizes of most eastern Pacific nesting sites. Within this DPS there is significant population substructuring. Four regional genetic stocks have been identified in the eastern Pacific (P. Dutton, NMFS, unpubl. data): Revillagigedos Archipelago (Mexico), Michoacán (Mexico), Costa Rica, and the Galápagos Islands (Ecuador). There is a relatively high level of spatial structure and the presence of rare/unique haplotypes at each nesting site stock. Green turtles from multiple nesting beach origins commonly mix at feeding areas in the Gulf of California (Nichols, 2003; P. Dutton, NMFS, unpubl. data). A recent study using nuclear single nucleotide polymorphisms (a DNA sequence variation occurring commonly within a population) and microsatellite markers investigated the genetic stock structure among five Pacific green turtle nesting populations. They found significant structure between their two eastern Pacific sample sites (Galápagos and Mexico), suggesting that male-mediated gene flow between regional nesting stocks is limited (Roden
Flipper tag recoveries show 94 tag returns from foraging areas that were applied at two primary nesting sites, Michoacán Mexico and the Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. Two apparent groupings suggest some North/South structure. Forty-nine satellite tracks of green turtles in the eastern Pacific show apparent track clustering in Northwest Mexico to Southern United States, and in the Southeast Pacific, from the Galápagos Islands to the high seas and to the Central American mainland. There are too few satellite tracks to provide solid information on spatial structure. Within-region variation in demographic features also suggests a level of spatial structure for the East Pacific DPS. Among all nesting
With regard to diversity and resilience, the East Pacific DPS has substantial nesting at both insular and continental nesting sites. The presence of year round nesting at some sites, and non-overlapping nesting seasons at others, suggest that the nesting phenology of green turtles in this DPS may help buffer in geologic time against climate change, both in terms of increased mean incubation temperatures on beaches and in terms of impact to storms and other seasonal events. The nesting season in Michoacán runs from October through January (Alvarado-Díaz and Figueroa, 1990); in the Revillagigedos Islands nesting occurs from March through November with a peak in April/May (Awbrey
There is a range of beach shade levels depending on the nesting beach. At some sites such as those in the Revillagigedos Islands and beaches in Mexico, the beaches have little vegetation and nests are commonly laid in full-sun areas. On the other hand, the beaches in Costa Rica are highly shaded and nests are commonly deposited deep in the coastal scrub bushes and trees. There are also intermediate sites, such as those in the Galápagos, which have a mix of full sun and shade sites on any given beach. While the exposed beaches are more likely to suffer from the impacts of climate change, those in shaded areas may be subjected to less heating.
The largest threat on nesting beaches in the East Pacific DPS is reduced availability of habitat due to heavy armament and subsequent erosion. In addition, while nesting beaches in Costa Rica, Revillagigedos Islands, and the Galápagos Islands are less affected by coastal development than green turtle nesting beaches in other regions around the Pacific, several of the secondary green turtle nesting beaches in México suffer from coastal development. For example, effects of coastal development are especially acute at Maruata, a site with heavy tourist activity and foot traffic during the nesting season (Seminoff, 1994). Nest destruction due to human presence is also a threat to nesting beaches in the Galapágos Islands (Zárate
With respect to environmental degradation in the marine environment, coastal habitats along the continental and insular shores of the eastern Pacific are relatively pristine, although green turtles in San Diego Bay, at the north edge of their range, have high levels of contaminants (Komoroske
In summary, within Factor A we find that the East Pacific DPS of the green turtle is negatively affected by ongoing changes in both its terrestrial and marine habitats as a result of land and water use practices. We also find that coastal development, beachfront lighting, and heavy foot traffic consistently affect hatchlings and nesting turtles on a small portion of this DPS.
In some countries and localities within the range of the East Pacific DPS, harvest of green turtle eggs is legal, while in others it is illegal but persistent due to lack of enforcement. The impact of egg harvest is exacerbated by the high monetary value of eggs, consistent market demand, and severe poverty in many of the countries in the Eastern Pacific Region where sea turtles are found. Egg harvest is a major conservation challenge at several sites in Costa Rica, including Nombre de Jesus and Zapotillal Beaches, where 90 percent of the eggs were taken by egg collectors during one particular study (Blanco, 2010). Egg harvest is also believed to occur at unprotected nesting sites in Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua (NMFS and USFWS, 2007). Indeed, green turtles are hunted in many areas of northwest Mexico despite legal protection (Nichols
Sea turtles were, and continue to be, harvested primarily for their meat, although other products have served important non-food uses. Sea turtle oil was for many years used as a cold remedy and the meat, eggs and other products have been highly-valued for their aphrodisiacal qualities, beliefs that strongly persist in the countries bordering the East Pacific DPS.
FP is virtually non-existent in green turtles within the East Pacific DPS (Koch
The following countries have laws to protect green turtles: Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, and the United States. In addition, at least 10 international treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms apply to the conservation of green turtles in the East Pacific DPS. Overall, regulatory mechanisms for green turtles in the East Pacific DPS are inconsistent. While there are numerous substantive and/or improving conservation efforts, especially on the primary nesting beaches, and this may be reflected in the recent increases in the number of nesting females, many concerns remain due to limited enforcement of existing laws and marine protected areas as well as extensive fishery bycatch, especially in coastal waters. The analysis of existing regulatory mechanisms assumed that all would remain in place at their current
While most of the major nesting beaches are monitored, some of the management measures in place are inadequate and may be inappropriate. On some beaches, hatchling releases are coordinated with the tourist industry or nests are being trampled on or are unprotected. The largest threat on the nesting beaches, reduced availability of habitat due to heavy armament and subsequent erosion, is just beginning to be addressed, but without immediate attention may ultimately result in the demise of the highest density beaches. Further, it is suspected that there are substantial impacts from illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, which we are unable to mitigate without additional fisheries management efforts and international collaborations. While conservation projects for this population have been in place since 1978 for some important areas, efforts in other areas are still being developed to address major threats, including fisheries bycatch and long-term nesting habitat protection.
Bycatch has not been thoroughly evaluated but it is largely known that most fishermen either improperly implement TEDs or remove them entirely from their trawls. As was the case with sea turtle meat and egg collection, an almost total lack of enforcement of bycatch mitigation measures by local authorities only helps to confound the problem. Additionally, TEDs are not a requirement for artisanal shrimping boats which, with today's technology, are becoming more `industrial' in ability and have been reported to catch large numbers of sea turtles. It is unlikely that bycatch mortality can be sufficiently reduced across the range of the DPS in the near future because of the diversity and magnitude of the fisheries operating in the DPS, the lack of comprehensive information on fishing distribution and effort, limitations on implementing demonstrated effective conservation measures, geopolitical complexities, limitations on enforcement capacity, and lack of availability of comprehensive bycatch reduction technologies.
The Status Review did not reveal regulatory mechanisms in place to specifically address impacts to the nesting beach, marine pollution, sea level rise, and effects of climate change that continue to contribute to the extinction risk of this DPS.
Incidental capture in artisanal and commercial fisheries is a significant threat to the survival of green turtles throughout the Eastern Pacific Ocean. The primary gear types involved in these interactions include longlines, drift nets, set nets, and trawl fisheries. These are employed by both artisanal and industrial fleets, and target a wide variety of species including tunas (
In the Eastern Pacific Ocean, particularly areas in the southern portion of the range of this DPS, significant bycatch has been reported in artisanal gill net and longline shark and mahi mahi fisheries operating out of Peru (Kelez
Koch
Bycatch in coastal areas occurs principally in shrimp trawlers, gill nets and bottom longlines (
Additionally, TEDs are not required for artisanal shrimping boats, which with today's technology, are becoming more `industrial' in ability and have been reported to catch large numbers of sea turtles (A. Zavala, Universidad de Sinaloa, pers. comm., 2012). Bottom-set longlines and gill nets, both artisanal and industrial, also interact frequently with sea turtles, and can have devastating mortality rates, such as has been the case in artisanal fisheries of Baja California, Mexico (Peckham
Other threats such as debris ingestion (Seminoff
Effects of climate change include, among other things, sea surface temperature increases, the alteration of thermal sand characteristics of beaches (from warming temperatures), which could result in the reduction or cessation of male hatchling production (Hawkes
Within Factor E, we find that fishery bycatch that occurs throughout the eastern Pacific Ocean, particularly bycatch mortality of green turtles from nearshore gill net fisheries, is a significant threat to the persistence of this DPS.
There are a multitude of NGOs and conservation networks whose efforts are raising awareness about sea turtle conservation.
Protection of green turtles is provided by local marine reserves throughout the region. In addition, sea turtles may benefit from the following broader regional efforts: (1) The Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP) Marine Corridor (CMAR) Initiative supported by the governments of Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, and Ecuador, which is a voluntary agreement to work towards sustainable use and conservation of marine resources in these countries' waters; (2) the ETP Seascape Program managed by Conservation International that supports cooperative marine management in the ETP, including implementation of the CMAR; (3) the IATTC and its bycatch reduction efforts that are among the world's finest for regional fisheries management organizations; (4) the IAC, which is designed to lessen impacts on sea turtles from fisheries and other human impacts; and (5) the Permanent Commission of the South Pacific (Lima Convention), which has developed an “Action Plan for Sea Turtles in the Southeast Pacific.”
There are indications that wildlife enforcement branches of local and national governments are stepping up their efforts to enforce existing laws, although successes in stemming sea turtle exploitation through legal channels are few and far between.
The East Pacific DPS is characterized by moderate levels of green turtle nesting abundance (>20,000 nesting females) occurring in three primary regions, with Mexico having the largest number of nesting females at several sites (13,664 nesting females), followed by the Galápagos, Ecuador (3,603 nesting females), and Costa Rica (2,826 nesting females distributed among 26 nesting sites). Although trend information is lacking for the vast majority of sites, 25 years of monitoring at Michoacán, Mexico—the largest nesting aggregation in this DPS—shows an increasing trend since the population's low point in the mid-1980s. In addition to Mexico, data from the Galápagos Archipelago suggest a stable trend, and the largest-ever nesting numbers reported in Costa Rica suggest this site may be on the increase as well.
Genetic and demographic data show some substructuring among the populations, and nesting is well-distributed in the East Pacific DPS, occurring from the tip of the Baja California Peninsula to northern Peru. Such a broad latitudinal range may be advantageous to green turtles in this DPS in the face of global climate change. Likewise, with year round nesting at several sites and non-overlapping nesting seasons at others, it appears that this DPS may benefit from nesting season temporal diversity in relation to population resilience. Lastly, nesting at both continental and insular sites provides a degree of diversity as well as resilience, with some insular sites providing relatively threat-free nesting refugia within this DPS's range.
Nevertheless, green turtles continue to be affected by a variety of threats within the range of the East Pacific DPS. These include harvest of eggs and turtles for food and non-food uses, bycatch in coastal and offshore marine fisheries gear, coastal development, beachfront lighting, and heavy foot traffic. Although the situation has improved to some extent, the harvest of turtles and their eggs continues throughout much of the range, although more problematic outside of the Galápagos Islands, particularly in Central America (egg harvest) and Mexico (harvest of foraging turtles). Mortality from diseases such as FP is not a problem in the Eastern Pacific, but depredation by natural predators is a very large concern, particularly in the Galápagos and, to a lesser extent, in Costa Rica. Green turtle interactions and mortalities with coastal and offshore fisheries in the eastern Pacific region are of concern and are considered an impediment to green turtle recovery in the East Pacific DPS. Yet despite these concerns, the largest nesting sites appear to be increasing.
Conservation actions, national laws, and international instruments have provided the foundation for what appears to be an ongoing population recovery in the region, particularly in Mexico, although work remains to ensure continued recovery. Further, our analysis did not consider the scenario in which current laws or regulatory mechanisms were not continued. Given the conservation dependence of the species, without mechanisms in place to continue conservation efforts and funding streams in this DPS, some threats could increase and population trends could be affected.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the East Pacific DPS as threatened. We do not find the DPS to be in danger of extinction presently because of high nesting abundance and increasing trends; however, the continued threats from coastal and offshore fisheries are likely to endanger the DPS within the foreseeable future.
Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that the Services make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of the species and taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any state or foreign nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and conserve the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)). We have reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information, including information included in the petition, the status review report, and other published and unpublished information; and we have consulted with species experts and individuals familiar with green turtles and their habitat.
Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we identify 11 green turtle DPSs: Central North Pacific, North Atlantic, Mediterranean, South Atlantic, Southwest Indian, North Indian, East Indian-West Pacific, Central West Pacific, Southwest Pacific, Central South Pacific, and East Pacific. We find that the purposes of the Act would be furthered by managing this wide-ranging species as separate units under the DPS authority, in order to allow for enhanced protections where needed. Based on a review of the five factors contained in ESA section 4(a)(1), we find that the best available science supports the listing status of “endangered” for three of the DPSs and therefore conclude that the species as a whole no longer meets the definition of a “threatened species” throughout its range. We propose to remove the current species-wide listing and to list 11 DPSs as threatened or endangered. We propose to list the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Southwest Indian, North Indian, East Indian-West Pacific, Southwest Pacific, Central North Pacific, and East Pacific DPSs as threatened, and the Mediterranean, Central West Pacific, and Central South Pacific DPSs as endangered for the reasons described above for each DPS.
Regarding the February 16, 2012 petition from the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs to identify the Hawaiian green turtle population as a DPS and “delist” the DPS under the
Under the ESA and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. See the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of Its Range” in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of “Endangered Species” and “Threatened Species” (79 FR 37577, July 1, 2014). Under that policy, we only need to consider whether listing may be appropriate on the basis of the “significant portion of its range” language if the rangewide analysis does not lead to a determination to list as threatened or endangered. Because we have determined that each DPS of green turtle is either threatened or endangered throughout all of its range, no portion of its range can be “significant” for purposes of the definitions of “endangered species” and “threatened species.”
Conservation measures provided for species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA include, but are not limited to, recovery plans and actions (prepared pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1536(f)) and the actions recommended in them; designation of critical habitat if prudent and determinable (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)(i)); Federal agency requirements to consult with the Services and to ensure its actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)); and prohibitions on taking (16 U.S.C. 1538). Recognition of the species' plight through listing promotes conservation actions by Federal and state agencies, foreign entities, private groups, and individuals. Should the proposed listings be made final, a recovery plan or plans may be developed, unless we find that such plan would not promote the conservation of the species.
Section 7(a)(4) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(4)) of the ESA and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402) require Federal agencies to confer with the Services on actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of species proposed for listing, or that result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a proposed species is ultimately listed, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to consult with the Services on any action they authorize, fund, or carry out if those actions may affect the listed species or its critical habitat; Federal agencies must insure that such actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or result in destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2); 50 CFR 402). Because green turtles are currently listed throughout their range, requirements for initiating consultation will not change if the current listing is reclassified and revised to reflect recognition of multiple DPSs. Examples of Federal actions that affect green turtles include, but are not limited to: Dredging and channelization, beach and nearshore construction, pile-driving, water quality standards, power plants, vessel traffic, military activities, and fisheries management practices.
Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA defines critical habitat as “(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed . . . on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed . . . upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)).” Section 3(3) of the ESA also defines the terms “conserve,” “conserving,” and “conservation” to mean “to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this chapter Act are no longer necessary (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)).”
Section 4(a)(3)(A)(i) of the ESA, as amended, and implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)), require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species. Designations of critical habitat must be based on the best scientific data available and must take into consideration the economic, national security, and other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)). The Services' regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to the species, or (2) such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
The identification and mapping of critical habitat is not expected to increase the degree of threat from human activity, such as take of turtles or eggs. In the absence of finding that the designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a species, a finding that designation may be prudent is warranted if there are any benefits to a critical habitat designation. Here, the potential benefits of designation would include (1) Triggering consultation under section 7 of the ESA for Federal actions in unoccupied designated critical habitat; (2) focusing conservation activities on the most essential features and areas; (3) providing educational benefits to State or county governments or private entities; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to the species.
Because we have determined that the designation of critical habitat will not likely increase the degree of threat to the species and may provide some measure of benefit, we determine that designation of critical habitat may be prudent for the green turtle, subject to review of information in connection with the designation.
Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) state that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following situations exists: (1) Information sufficient to perform required analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking; or (2) the biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat. At this point, we are still in the process of acquiring the information needed to assess the critical habitat designation. Accordingly, we find designation of critical habitat to be not determinable at this time.
A final regulation designating critical habitat is generally due concurrently with a final regulation listing a species as endangered or threatened (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)). The statute does not mandate that the proposed rule to designate critical habitat has to be published concurrent with the proposed listing rule, and thus a proposed rule designating critical habitat may be
The Services previously designated critical habitat for green turtles in waters surrounding Culebra Island, Puerto Rico from the mean high water line seaward to 3 nautical miles (5.6 km; 63 FR 46693, September 2, 1998). These waters include Culebra's outlying Keys, including Cayo Norte, Cayo Ballena, Cayos Geniquí, Isla Culebrita, Arrecife Culebrita, Cayo de Luis Peña, Las Hermanas, El Mono, Cayo Lobo, Cayo Lobito, Cayo Botijuela, Alcarraza, Los Gemelos, and Piedra Steven, and are within the range of the North Atlantic DPS.
The ESA does not speak directly to the status of designated critical habitat when the agency later amends a species listing by dividing it into constituent DPSs. Notably, critical habitat does not lose its biological and conservation relevance to the relevant listed DPS (here, the North Atlantic) simply because the species listing is amended. Moreover, carrying forward an existing critical habitat designation can enhance the protection provided to the listed DPS because the carried-forward designation protects habitat features essential to the species' recovery from destruction or adverse modification in section 7 consultations. Given that Congress has not spoken directly to this issue in the statute, we find that the benefits of designated critical habitat, the ESA's broad purpose to conserve the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend, and taking a reasonable precautionary approach, the ESA should be construed to provide in these circumstances for keeping existing critical habitat designation in place as a transitional matter until the designation is re-promulgated or amended through a further rulemaking. Therefore, critical habitat remains in effect for the listed North Atlantic DPS in order to preserve its conservation value, as the designated critical habitat continues to support the DPS's important biological functions (
All of the take prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)) will automatically apply to the three DPSs proposed to be listed as endangered, the Mediterranean, Central West Pacific and Central South Pacific, if the proposal to list them as endangered is finalized. These include prohibitions against importing, exporting, engaging in foreign or interstate commerce, or “taking” of the species. “Take” is defined under the ESA as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C. § 1532(19)).” These prohibitions apply to any “person” (as defined by the ESA) subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including in the United States, its territorial sea, or on the high seas. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the Services, other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation agencies. In addition, 50 CFR part 224.104 would apply to the proposed endangered DPSs. Some of the current provisions apply only to areas in the Gulf of Mexico and U.S. Atlantic; however, future provisions may apply to any endangered DPS, without regard to its geographic boundaries.
In the case of threatened species, ESA section 4(d) authorizes the Secretary to issue regulations deemed necessary and appropriate for the conservation of species. The Services already have in place take prohibitions and exceptions that apply to threatened species of sea turtles, set forth at 50 CFR 17.42(b), 223.205, 223.206, and 223.207. These existing take prohibitions and exceptions will continue to remain in effect and apply to those DPSs listed as threatened, which are the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Southwest Indian, North Indian, East Indian-West Pacific, Southwest Pacific, Central North Pacific, and East Pacific DPSs.
Pursuant to section 10 of the ESA, we may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered and threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 and 50 CFR 223.206. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the ESA.
On July 1, 1994, the Services published a policy (59 FR 34272) that requires us to identify, to the maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on proposed and ongoing activities within a species' range. We will identify, to the extent known at the time of the final rule, those specific activities that, although they may appear to pose impacts to the species, will not be considered likely to result in violation of section 9, as well as activities that will be considered likely to result in violation. Based on currently available information, we conclude that the activities most likely to violate the section 9 prohibitions against “take” of endangered green turtle DPSs include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Importation or exportation of any part of a green turtle or green turtle eggs; (2) directed take of green turtles, including fishing for, capturing, handling, or possessing green turtles, eggs, or parts; (3) sale of green turtles, eggs, or parts; (4) destruction or modification of green turtle habitat, including nesting beaches, beaches used for basking, and developmental, foraging habitat, and migratory habitat that actually kills or injures green turtles (50 CFR 222.102); and (5) indirect take of green turtles in the course of otherwise lawful activities, such as fishing, dredging, coastal construction, vessel traffic, and discharge of pollutants. We emphasize that whether a violation results from a particular activity depends upon the facts and circumstances of each incident. The mere fact that an activity may fall within one of these categories does not mean that the specific activity will cause a violation; due to such factors as location and scope, specific actions may not result in direct or indirect adverse effects on the species. Further, an
The intent of the peer review policy is to ensure that listings are based on the best scientific and commercial data available. In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for public disclosure of peer review planning, and opportunities for public participation. The OMB Bulletin, implemented under the Information Quality Act (Public Law 106-554), is intended to enhance the quality and credibility of the Federal government's scientific information, and applies to influential or highly influential scientific information disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. To satisfy our requirements under the OMB Bulletin, we obtained independent peer review of the status review report from 15 independent specialists in the academic and scientific community. All peer reviewer comments were addressed prior to dissemination of the final status review report and publication of this proposed rule.
The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the information that may be considered when assessing species for listing. Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the opinion in
As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process. In addition, this proposed rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
In accordance with E.O. 13132, we determined that this proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects and that a Federalism assessment is not required. In keeping with the intent of the Administration and Congress to provide continuing and meaningful dialogue on issues of mutual state and Federal interest, this proposed rule will be given to the relevant state agencies in each state in which the species is believed to occur, and those states will be invited to comment on this proposal. We have considered, among other things, Federal, State, and local conservation measures. As we proceed, we intend to continue engaging in informal and formal contacts with the State, and other affected local or regional entities, giving careful consideration to all written and oral comments received.
Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Transportation.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 17, 223, and 224 are proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
(h) The “List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife” is provided below:
16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, § 223.201-202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361
(e) The threatened species under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Commerce are:
16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C. 1361
(h) The endangered species under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Commerce are:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing requirements that state, local and tribal air agencies would have to meet as they implement the current and future national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0691, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For general information on this proposed rule, contact Mr. Rich Damberg, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, by phone at (919) 541-5592 or by email at
The following are abbreviations of terms used in the preamble.
Entities potentially affected directly by this proposed rule include state, local and tribal governments and air pollution control agencies responsible for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Entities potentially affected indirectly by this proposed rule as regulated sources include owners and operators of sources that emit PM
2.
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions. The proposed rule may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used to support your comment.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns wherever possible, and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
For information pertaining to the one public hearing on this document, contact Ms. Pamela Long, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C504-03), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-0641; fax number (919) 541-5509; email address:
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this
The information presented in this document is organized as follows:
Ambient, or outdoor, air can contain a variety of pollutants, including particulate matter (PM). Airborne PM can be comprised of either solid or liquid particles, and can be a complex mixture of particles in both solid and liquid form. The most common constituents of airborne PM include: sulfate (SO
The human health effects associated with long- or short-term exposure to PM
On December 14, 2012, the EPA made revisions to the suite of NAAQS for PM to provide requisite protection of public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. The EPA also made corresponding revisions to the data handling conventions for PM and the ambient air monitoring, reporting and network design requirements for PM. Specifically, the agency revised the primary annual PM
Estimates show that attainment of the primary PM
In order to determine how to regulate sources of direct PM
As noted earlier, the term PM
PM
OM is the fraction of ambient PM
EC refers to particulate carbon that has a graphitic molecular structure, and is sometimes referred to as “black carbon” (BC). It is emitted directly from emission sources and does not undergo any significant reactions with other gases in the atmosphere. EC particles result from primary emissions involving combustion, especially from diesel-fueled vehicles, but also from other processes involving the burning of fossil fuels. The latter includes anthropogenic sources such as boilers and waste disposal. In addition, some EC particles originate from biomass combustion such as from prescribed fires, wildfires and residential wood combustion.
Crustal PM is comprised of particles of soil and oxides of metals from some industrial processes. Compounds comprised of elements such as silicon, aluminum, iron, calcium, titanium, magnesium and potassium, as well as oxygen, are major components.
The remaining portion of ambient PM
a.
b.
c.
d.
VOC (both anthropogenic and biogenic) are key precursors to the SOA component of PM
Anthropogenic sources of VOC include mobile sources, petrochemical manufacturing, oil and gas emissions and solvents.
e.
As indicated earlier, ammonia plays an important role in neutralizing acids, such as sulfuric acid and nitric acid, in clouds, precipitation and particles. On the other hand, deposited ammonia can contribute to problems of eutrophication in water bodies due to its nutritive properties.
f.
Table 2 shows regional 3-year mean concentrations (2009-2011) of PM
The composition of PM
Sections 108 and 109 of the CAA govern the establishment, review and revision, as appropriate, of NAAQS for widespread pollutants emitted from numerous and diverse sources considered harmful to public health and the environment. The CAA requires two types of NAAQS: (i)
The EPA first promulgated annual and 24-hour NAAQS for PM
Section 109(d)(1) of the CAA requires the EPA periodically to review the science upon which the standards are based and the standards themselves, and to revise the standards as may be appropriate. In October 2006, the EPA promulgated revisions to the suite of NAAQS for PM, and in particular the EPA revised the 24-hour PM
The EPA initiated a review of the PM
On January 4, 2013, shortly after the EPA promulgated the 2012 revisions to the suite of PM NAAQS, the DC Circuit issued its decision in a challenge to the 2007 PM
The EPA intends to use this current rulemaking to accomplish multiple objectives. First, the EPA is taking this action to clarify how air agencies should meet the statutory SIP requirements that apply to areas designated nonattainment for any PM
The CAA establishes important roles both for state and tribal governments and for the EPA in implementing the NAAQS. In accordance with the principle of cooperative federalism, both state and tribal governments and the EPA have respective authorities and responsibilities under the CAA. At the outset, the EPA has the authority and responsibility to promulgate the NAAQS. In turn, state, local and tribal air agencies have the authority and primary responsibility for developing and implementing attainment plans that contain emission control measures needed to achieve the air quality standards in each nonattainment area, consistent with the requirements of the CAA. The EPA often assists air agencies by promulgating regulations or providing guidance for meeting implementation requirements and technical tools, including information on control measures.
The EPA also promulgates nationally applicable control requirements and emission limits for many sources such as new motor vehicles, certain categories of new and modified major stationary sources and existing stationary sources of toxic air pollutants. These federal actions assist state and tribal air agencies by achieving emission reductions from certain categories of sources nationwide, which can help with local attainment needs in a given nonattainment area. In addition, the EPA has authority to address
The NAAQS implementation planning process begins with initial area designations, through which states and the EPA identify areas of the country that either meet or do not meet the new or revised NAAQS, along with identifying the nearby areas contributing to violations of the NAAQS. Section 107(d)(1) of the CAA requires that: “By such date as the Administrator may reasonably require, but not later than 1 year after promulgation of a new or revised national ambient air quality standard for any pollutant under section 109, the Governor of each state shall . . . submit to the Administrator a list of all areas (or portions thereof) in the State” that designates those areas as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable.
Under subpart 4, the CAA provides for classification of PM
All areas designated as nonattainment for the 2012 PM
As of the date of this proposal, the first round of initial designations for most areas for the 2012 primary annual PM
Ambient air quality monitoring for PM
In conjunction with the promulgation of the 2012 PM
For initial area designations for any PM
In general terms, a SIP is the compilation of EPA-approved state statutes, regulations and programs that a state develops and relies upon to carry out its NAAQS implementation responsibilities under the CAA, including the attainment, maintenance and enforcement of NAAQS. States use the SIP development process to identify the emissions sources that contribute to the nonattainment problem in a particular area, and to select the required emissions reduction measures most appropriate for that area, considering factors such as technological and economic feasibility. As part of developing an attainment plan, the states must meet specific requirements of the CAA to attain the NAAQS,
The EPA recognizes the significant variability in the nature and sources of PM
In addition, data suggest that ambient PM
The control measures identified and adopted by a state through the SIP development process for bringing nonattainment areas into attainment constitute an important component of the CAA's overall strategy for meeting the PM
Additionally, there are PM
The EPA will continue to work closely with air agencies as they develop and use an appropriate combination of national, regional and local pollution reduction measures to meet the standards as expeditiously as practicable, as required by the CAA.
The EPA recognizes that a threshold question in developing PM
The EPA's 2007 PM
Section 302(g) of the CAA indicates that the term “air pollutant” includes “any precursors to the formation of any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term `air pollutant' is used.” In the 2007 PM
To facilitate the evaluation and identification of reasonable control measures, the 2007 PM
The rule also included provisions for potentially reversing the EPA's initial presumptions for certain precursors in a nonattainment area where the state or
The 2008 PM
The EPA's approach to the evaluation and regulation of PM
Ammonia is a precursor to fine particulate matter, making it a precursor to both PM
In light of our disposition, we need not address the petitioners' challenge to the presumptions in [40 CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic compounds and ammonia are not PM
Section 189(e) for PM
The provisions of subpart 4 do not define the term “precursor” for purposes of PM
When Congress adopted the 1990 CAA Amendments, a NAAQS for PM
While section 189(e) expressly requires control of precursors from major stationary sources where direct PM from major sources is to be controlled unless certain conditions are met, as stated above, it is clear that subpart 4 and other CAA provisions collectively require the control of direct PM and all PM
The EPA is proposing this rule to address the attainment plan and certain NNSR requirements for PM
For the purposes of this implementation rule, the EPA considers that for all nonattainment areas, the PM
The EPA believes that application of a similar approach to PM
As explained above, the EPA interprets the CAA to require states to inventory and regulate all sources of PM
The EPA is thus seeking comment on three potential approaches to address PM
The descriptions of the three precursor policy options being proposed in this section discuss how PM
Before discussing the three precursor options, it is important to introduce a new term that is used throughout this section and other sections of the notice. Under subpart 4, RACM (including RACT) are those measures that can and must be implemented within 4 years of the area's designation as nonattainment (pursuant to section 189(a)(1)(C)). The EPA recognizes, however, that other, similarly reasonable emissions reduction measures could be implemented after this 4 year period, and as late as the end of the sixth calendar year following designation, to help an area attain as expeditiously as practicable. Therefore, in this proposal the EPA is proposing to define the term “additional reasonable measures” to describe those technologically and economically feasible control measures that could not be implemented within the 4 year period after designation, but could be implemented starting any time after that 4 year period through the end of the sixth calendar year after designation (note that this period could extend almost 3 additional years, depending on when during the year area designations are finalized).
• Option 1: Two independent analyses: (a) An attainment planning analysis demonstrating that control measures for a particular precursor are not needed for expeditious attainment, meaning that the precursor can be excluded from measures needed to attain as expeditiously as practicable for all types of sources; and (b) a section 189(e) technical demonstration showing that major stationary sources of a particular precursor do not contribute significantly to levels that exceed the PM
• Option 2: Single analysis demonstrating that all emissions of a particular precursor from within the area do not significantly contribute to PM
• Option 3: An attainment planning analysis demonstrating that control measures for all types of sources of a particular precursor are not needed for expeditious attainment also would be deemed to meet the section 189(e) technical demonstration requirement, meaning that the state would not need to regulate emissions of the particular precursor from major stationary sources under the NNSR permitting program or other control requirements for major stationary sources.
1.
As with the other options discussed below, the critical first step in any precursor analysis is the development of a comprehensive inventory of all precursor emissions in the nonattainment area. A state will be unable to reasonably determine whether emissions of a given PM
In general terms, Option 1 would require separate analyses for purposes of attainment planning and for NNSR. Section 189(a) of the CAA describes the requirements for Moderate nonattainment areas. Within 18 months of designation as nonattainment, the state is required to submit a Moderate area plan that either demonstrates attainment as expeditiously as practicable but by no later than the end of the sixth year following designation, or demonstrates that attainment by such date would be impracticable.
Under Option 1, the state would determine the precursors for which new control measures need to be adopted for a given nonattainment area through its determination of reasonable control measures needed for attainment. The state's analysis of reasonable measures for a given PM
a.
b.
For states that can make the showing that they cannot attain the NAAQS by the end of the sixth calendar year after designation, the question arises as to whether the state should be required to adopt all reasonable measures (
Under the second sub-option, the state would be able to elect not to impose those technologically and economically feasible measures that collectively have minimal effect on ambient PM
c.
After an area has been reclassified to Serious, subpart 4 requires a state's Serious area attainment plan to include the imposition of more stringent control measures (best available control measures (BACM) and best available control technology (BACT)) intended to bring the area into attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the end of the tenth calendar year after designation. Given that the CAA requires a more stringent new attainment plan for Serious areas, under Option 1 the state would be required to identify the best available measures for all sources of direct PM
The BACM and BACT determination requires a more rigorous analysis than the RACM and RACT analysis, and such measures collectively should lead to a greater degree of emission reduction in the area than the analysis of reasonable control measures for the Moderate area plan. For this reason, under Option 1, if the state's previous Moderate area attainment plan had indicated that new emissions reduction measures from sources of one or more precursors were not needed to attain by the end of the sixth calendar year after designation, then for the Serious area plan the state would need to reevaluate the best control measures addressing all PM
d.
2.
Option 2 would provide the state the opportunity to provide the EPA with a scientifically credible technical analysis that would demonstrate that one or more precursors do not contribute significantly to the PM
Section 189(e) provides that precursor control requirements apply to major stationary sources of precursors of PM
For Option 2B, the EPA proposes to allow states to provide a technical demonstration showing that PM
These proposed options are consistent with the EPA's past practice for determining which technologically and economically feasible controls are necessary for expeditious attainment of the NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA has interpreted the RACM requirement in the CAA as requiring imposition of all reasonable controls as needed for expeditious attainment or to advance the attainment date by at least 1 year. The statute does not require imposition of additional controls if collectively such measures would not advance the attainment date. The EPA maintains it is reasonable to treat regulation of PM
a.
The sensitivity analyses required under Option 2B would need to assess a series of precursor emissions reductions and increases to determine the sensitivity to air quality in the area. For example, the analysis should evaluate the effect on PM
The EPA would evaluate the relevant analyses and other supporting information provided by the state. By submitting a “precursor demonstration” of this type, the state would not need to compile additional information on precursor control measures, or to proceed with actions to adopt and implement local or state regulations for the precursor. Precursor demonstrations as described in Options 2A or 2B could be conducted for Moderate areas for which the state can show that it can attain the standard by the end of the sixth calendar year after designation and for Moderate areas where the state's plan demonstrates that attainment by such date would be impracticable.
The EPA believes that general legal authorities under the CAA support the proposal of the overall precursor demonstration concept described above, and that requesting comment on these proposed options is appropriate from both a technical and a legal standpoint. This case specific approach is technically appropriate because the mix of PM
The EPA believes that proposing Options 2A and 2B is appropriate from a legal standpoint based on authority provided the Administrator in sections 302(g) and 301(a)(1) of the CAA. Section 302(g) includes in the definition of “air pollutant” all the precursors to that pollutant, and it allows the EPA Administrator to regulate precursors for “the particular purpose for which the term `air pollutant' is used.” Under section 301(a)(1), “[t]he Administrator is authorized to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out his functions under this Act.” Thus, with Option 2, the EPA proposes a framework by which the regulation of PM
The EPA anticipates that development of an approvable PM
b.
Proposed Option 2 would allow a “precursor demonstration” approach for Serious area plans in the same manner as for Moderate area plans. However, if the state had previously submitted a precursor demonstration that the EPA approved for the Moderate area attainment plan, under either proposed Option 2A or 2B the state would be required to review and update the precursor demonstration, taking into account any changes in the emissions inventory and any other relevant information or advances in technical tools developed since the initial demonstration was approved. Examples of such information would be improved emission estimation methods or emission factors for key source categories; changes in precursor emissions inventories due to emissions control programs or new source growth; the development of more advanced technical tools to assess the effectiveness of precursor reductions; and, updated information about new or more effective control technologies or emission reduction techniques. Any precursor demonstration that is approved as part of the Serious area attainment plan would need to be revised and updated if the area cannot attain the standard by the end of the tenth calendar year after designation and seeks an extension under section 188(e) or does not attain the standard by the applicable Serious area attainment date and is subsequently subject to 5 percent annual emission reductions under section 189(d).
One other important factor to consider is the substantial amount of time that can elapse between the submission of a Moderate area attainment plan for a particular nonattainment area, and submission of a Serious area attainment plan. The plan for a Moderate area is due within 18 months of designation. Under the EPA's overall proposed approach to attainment plan development, the state would be required to evaluate control measures for all types of sources and for all PM
If the Moderate area does not attain the standard by the end of the sixth calendar year after designation, then as required by to the CAA, the EPA would have 6 months to make a determination to that effect, and the area would be reclassified to Serious. The state would then have 18 months to submit, at a minimum, a new attainment demonstration and control strategy comprising BACM and BACT. Thus, under these circumstances, these key Serious area plan elements would be due at least 8 years after the EPA designated the area nonattainment, and more than 6 years after the state submitted the original Moderate area plan. Because of the potentially protracted timeline for developing, implementing and revising as necessary the SIP for a given PM
The EPA requests comment on the requirement for the state to review and update any previously approved “precursor demonstration” if the area fails to attain the standard by the applicable Moderate area attainment date. The EPA also requests comment on the requirement for the state to review and update any previously approved “precursor demonstration” if the area fails to attain the standard by the applicable Serious area attainment date.
c.
Under Option 2B, the state would conduct analyses to determine the sensitivity of PM
Additionally, there could be a situation where the state finds that emissions of another precursor (
3.
Under proposed Option 3, the consideration of precursors in the attainment planning process for Moderate and Serious areas would closely follow the approach described for Option 1 (
To clarify the intent of Option 3, unlike under Option 1, a separate analysis to show that major stationary sources of a particular precursor do not contribute significantly to PM
The rationale supporting the Option 3 approach focuses on the section 189(e) emphasis on precursor control requirements. If control measures are not needed in a Moderate nonattainment area to reduce emissions of a particular precursor from all types of sources in order to demonstrate attainment or to advance the attainment date, then under the rationale of proposed Option 3, it would follow that the state would not need to include any other control requirements that apply to major stationary sources of that precursor, including control requirements for PM
Additionally, under Option 3, as was the case with Option 2, there could be a situation where the state determines that control measures for a particular precursor are generally needed in order to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but that the major stationary sources of that precursor that are located in the nonattainment area have an insignificant contribution to PM
The EPA also seeks comment on whether only one of these approaches should be included in the final rule, or whether it would be appropriate to include multiple approaches (
As noted earlier, in the preamble to the 2007 PM
For this proposed implementation rule, the EPA similarly proposes that the state should have the flexibility to present multiple types of analyses to support any demonstration for exempting a precursor from control requirements as long as they fairly represent the available information, and accordingly proposes that the EPA should review any such demonstration based on the weight of evidence. Unlike in the prior implementation rule, however, later in this section the EPA raises the question of whether certain specific types of analyses should be included as minimum required components of any precursor demonstration that a state chooses to submit to the EPA for approval.
The preamble to the 2007 PM
The 2007 PM
Under all three proposed precursor policy options described above, the state would have the opportunity to provide a precursor demonstration to meet the requirements of section 189(e) of the CAA. Precursor demonstrations pursuant to section 189(e) should evaluate the significance of the contribution of emissions of a particular precursor from existing major stationary sources to fine particle concentrations that exceed the standard. However, Options 2A and 2B differ from the others in that they would provide the state with the ability to conduct a precursor demonstration that comprehensively assesses the contribution of a particular precursor from all types of sources in the nonattainment area (not just from major stationary sources as specifically addressed by section 189(e)) for the purposes of informing which precursors must be addressed in both the attainment plan and in the NNSR program for a particular PM
In the 2007 PM
In determining which approach to include in the present proposal, the EPA believes that it continues to be reasonable that any precursor demonstration conducted to assess precursor significance for NNSR purposes should evaluate emissions from major stationary sources of the precursor from within the nonattainment area only. Section 189(e) is included in a part of the CAA that specifically sets forth nonattainment area requirements. For attainment planning purposes it is less clear that the evaluation of emissions should be limited only to sources from within the nonattainment area, because the state has jurisdiction over emissions sources located throughout the state, and can impose emission reduction requirements on contributing sources outside of nonattainment areas if necessary to help bring areas with violating monitors into attainment. At the same time, that argument would suggest that section 189(e) should be interpreted as requiring two different analyses of the impacts of precursors emitted from two different geographic scales (from within the nonattainment area, as well as from a broader area that influences air quality within the nonattainment area, which could include the entire state). The EPA does not believe such an interpretation is required, nor does it believe that such multiple analyses are warranted. The statute simply refers in general terms to precursor emissions from major stationary sources and does not differentiate between control requirements for attainment planning and control requirements for other purposes, such as NNSR permitting. The statute also does not indicate that multiple analyses must be done to assess major stationary source impacts from multiple geographic scales. For these reasons, the EPA is proposing that
As noted above, the EPA encourages states to provide a range of analyses to thoroughly understand the effect of precursor emissions on PM
a.
In light of the statutory language and the capabilities of existing technical tools, the EPA proposes to require that the state conduct such a contribution analysis at a minimum as part of any proposed precursor demonstration, and that the state conduct an analysis using an air quality modeling system that adequately accounts for the PM
b.
The principal PM
One approach to assessing precursor sensitivities would be to conduct a model simulation that evaluates the effect on PM
For the reasons discussed above, the EPA also proposes that any precursor demonstration conducted under proposed Option 2B must provide a set of sensitivity analyses that evaluate the effect of a range of emissions changes associated with measures considered economically and technically feasible in a particular nonattainment area. Analyses that reduce emissions of a particular precursor will help the state and the EPA to understand how “responsive” the atmosphere would be to control measures and how effective such reductions would be relative to other precursor reductions. Although not specifically required for other options under this proposed rule, precursor sensitivity analyses evaluating the effect of varying degrees of potential precursor reductions would provide meaningful information for any precursor demonstration intended to show that a particular precursor does not need to be addressed for attainment planning. Conversely, sensitivity analyses that consider the effect of a range of potential emissions increases in the nonattainment area will help the state and the EPA to understand the potential response of PM
In considering this question, it is helpful to first look to how the concept of a significant, or insignificant, contribution has been interpreted with regard to particulate matter in past PM
Developed pursuant to subpart 4, this past guidance on what could be considered to be a
The concept of “significant contribution” also has been a central one with regard to interstate transport and the interpretation of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA. In past programs to address interstate transport, such as the CAIR, an “upwind” state was identified as potentially subject to additional emission control requirements if the impact of SO
There are a number of important distinctions between the section 110(a)(2)(D) interstate transport provision and the section 189(e) provision addressing contributions of major stationary sources in a nonattainment area which would indicate that the 1 percent of the NAAQS significant contribution thresholds that have been included in section 110(a)(2)(D) rulemakings may not be relevant for purposes of section 189(e) precursor demonstrations. Section 110(a)(2)(D) was designed to address the collective contribution of interstate transport of pollution from multiple upwind states, while section 189(e) addresses contributions from major stationary sources in a single nonattainment area. In addition, section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain provisions to eliminate the contributions that are deemed significant, whereas section 189(e) merely requires that the emissions be controlled. Given the differences in purpose, scale, and scope, the EPA does not believe it is necessary for a threshold for “significant contribution” to be the same for the two programs.
Based on the considerations discussed above regarding inclusion of a potential significance “threshold” for purposes of this PM
The second option would specify a “significance” threshold of 3 percent, such that if contribution modeling indicated that base year emissions of the precursor from the relevant sources in the nonattainment area (
The EPA therefore seeks comment on: (1) Whether a specific significant contribution threshold should be included in the final rule or not; (2) if the commenter considers inclusion of a specific threshold to be appropriate, whether the proposed 3 percent of the relevant NAAQS threshold and its basis would be appropriate, and why; and (3) whether a threshold with an alternative level and supporting rationale would be more appropriate.
Sections 189(a), (c), and (e) of the CAA require that Moderate area attainment plans contain the following: (i) An approved permit program for construction of new and modified major stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); (ii) a demonstration that the plan provides for attainment by no later than the applicable Moderate area deadline or a demonstration that attainment by that deadline is impracticable (section 189(a)(1)(B)); (iii) provisions for the implementation of RACM and RACT no later than 4 years after designation (section 189(a)(1)(C)); (iv) quantitative milestones that will be used to evaluate compliance with the requirement to demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) (section 189(c)); and, (v) evaluation and regulation of PM
Each of these statutory requirements is described more fully below. In certain cases, the EPA is proposing options for implementing a statutory requirement for purposes of the PM
Section 189 of the CAA specifies the schedule by which states must submit attainment plans for the PM
The EPA believes that the statutory deadline for submission of a Moderate area attainment plan for the PM
Pursuant to its authority under section 110 of title I of the CAA, the EPA has long required states to submit inventories of the emissions of criteria pollutants and their precursors. The EPA codified these requirements in 40 CFR part 51, subpart Q in 1979 and amended them in 1987. Additionally, the 1990 CAA Amendments revised many of the provisions of the CAA related to attainment of the NAAQS and the protection of visibility in mandatory Class I federal areas (certain national parks and wilderness areas). These revisions established new emissions inventory requirements applicable to areas that were designated nonattainment for certain pollutants. In the case of particulate matter, Congress did not create a specific emissions inventory requirement in subpart 4 that would supersede the emissions inventory requirement under subpart 1. Thus, the section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory requirements continue to apply, and that provision explicitly requires “a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions of the relevant pollutants” in the nonattainment area. In addition, the specific attainment plan requirements for the PM
Emissions inventory data serve as the foundation for various types of analyses that enable states to evaluate the degree to which different emissions sources contribute to the nonattainment problem in a given nonattainment area and enable states to estimate the air quality improvement that can be achieved through different control measures. States should use the best available, current emissions inventory information for attainment plan development, because high quality emissions inventory data are essential for the development of an effective control strategy. To assist states in preparing complete, high quality inventories, the EPA provides guidance for developing emissions inventories called “Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze,” which is available from
Neither section 172(c)(3), nor the provisions specifically applicable to attainment plans for the PM
There are three key facets of the EPA's proposed emissions inventory requirements, as laid out below: (i) The type of inventories required; (ii) the timing of submittal of these inventories; and, (iii) the content of these inventories. These inventory requirements are being proposed to provide all of the requirements in a concise and direct way. In some cases, the EPA's rationale for the content requirements needs additional supporting description, which is provided in the subsequent text related to the use of seasonal inventories, required pollutants, etc.
First, the EPA believes that in order to implement the PM
Second, as noted above, to meet the statutory requirements for submission of attainment plans under subpart 4, the EPA believes that states must meet the same submission schedule for these emissions inventories as for the other elements of an attainment plan,
Third, the EPA proposes to establish specific requirements for both the base year inventory for the nonattainment area and for the attainment projected inventory for the nonattainment area in order to implement the PM
(a) The inventory year must be one of the 3 years used for designations or another technically appropriate inventory year. Another inventory year may be chosen under specific circumstances (
(b) The inventory must include actual emissions of all sources within the nonattainment area. This requirement stems directly from the wording of section 172(c)(3). Sources outside of the nonattainment area are explicitly not included in the section 172(c)(3) requirement with the words “in such area.” Furthermore, the EPA interprets the Act requirement for “actual emissions from all sources” in section 172(c)(3) as intending to include all emissions that may contribute to the formation of PM
(c) The emissions values must either be annual total emissions or average-season-day emissions, as appropriate for the nonattainment problem. The rationale for providing annual or seasonal emissions must be included as part of the plan. A discussion of the EPA's rationale for proposing the option of seasonal or annual inventories is provided in Section IV.B.4 of this preamble.
(d) As discussed above and consistent with past implementation rule requirements, the inventory must include emissions of direct PM
(e) The emissions thresholds for which emissions sources must be reported as point sources must be followed from the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR), 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. This requirement is consistent with past implementation rules and is needed to define the data structure (as opposed to the emissions values themselves) of the emissions submitted to the EPA. A discussion of the use of 40 CFR part 51, subpart A, for the emissions thresholds and data reporting elements is provided in Section IV.B.6 of this preamble.
(f) The detail of the emissions included in the inventory must be consistent with the detail required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. For example, all emissions must be subdivided to individual emissions processes within a facility or county. While these details should underlie the inventory, the emissions included in the attainment plan can be summarized. This requirement is consistent with the 2007 PM
(g) If the base year inventory for the nonattainment area is submitted to the EPA as a separate plan submission (
For the attainment projected inventory for the nonattainment area, the EPA also proposes to promulgate more specific requirements in order to implement the PM
(a) The year of the projected inventory must be the first year for which attainment is demonstrated by the modeled attainment plan.
(b) The emissions values must be projected emissions of the same sources included in the base year inventory for the nonattainment area (
(c) The temporal period of emissions must be the same temporal period (annual or average-season-day) as the base year inventory for the nonattainment area.
(d) Consistent with the base year inventory for the nonattainment area, the inventory must include all emissions of direct PM
(e) The same sources reported as point sources in the base year inventory for the nonattainment area must also be provided as point sources in the attainment projected inventory for the nonattainment area. Likewise, nonpoint and mobile source projected emissions must also be provided using the same detail (
(f) The detail of the emissions included must be consistent with the level of detail in the base year inventory (
(g) If the attainment projected inventory for the nonattainment area is submitted to the EPA as a separate plan submission (
This proposed rule includes more specific requirements for emissions inventories than past implementation rules. First, the EPA proposes to require the attainment projected inventory for the nonattainment area. In practice, some states were providing this information at the request of their respective EPA Regional Offices, but it was not a specific requirement. The EPA believes that a specific requirement is necessary to ensure that the EPA and the public can reasonably assess the changes in emissions in the nonattainment area that the state maintains demonstrate that the area will attain the standard or that it is impracticable to attain the standard by the attainment date. Without such information, there is no way for the EPA to assess the projected emissions changes in the nonattainment area that the state asserts contribute to attainment. In addition, this proposed requirement would support the EPA's first proposed approach for conducting an RFP analysis as described in Section IV.F of this preamble.
This proposed rule also is more specific about the requirements for the emissions inventories submitted. While the various criteria (a) through (g) listed above have been implicit in prior rules and associated guidance, the EPA believes that not having these specific requirements has caused confusion and inconsistencies across attainment plan inventories in the past. Thus, the EPA is proposing to require these minimum criteria in this proposed rule. Furthermore, the option for using only seasonal inventories in some attainment plans is a new facet of this rule, further described in Section IV.B.5 of this preamble.
The 2007 PM
The 2007 PM
The statute does not explicitly address whether the emissions inventory required under section 172(c)(3) should include emissions throughout an entire calendar year or emissions during some shorter portion of the year that may be appropriate for implementation of a particular NAAQS. In the case of the PM
In contrast with the annual PM
The EPA is proposing that states must submit emissions inventories that include all emissions of direct PM
The EPA requires air agencies to use the best available methodologies for estimating emissions of PM
Because the provisions of the CAA do not specifically state the form of the emissions information to be reported to the EPA for meeting their attainment plan inventory requirement, it is necessary for the EPA to prescribe specifically the data elements of those emissions inventories. Distinct from the emissions
In addition to defining the data elements, 40 CFR part 51, subpart A also requires states to submit emissions information to the EPA. The EPA is not referring to those emissions submission requirements here, but rather the emissions elements—the definitions, data codes and required data fields. Below, the EPA addresses the issue of whether the emissions values submitted through the AERR are relevant to the inventory requirements of this proposed rule (
As noted earlier, the EPA recommends that states consult the SIP Emissions Inventory Guidance in preparing the inventories needed for this rule. In addition to the AERR, this guidance includes definitions for data fields that are not required by the AERR, such as seasonal emissions values and other fields that are optional in the data system that collects data submitted for the AERR. The EPA is updating the SIP Emissions Inventory Guidance in coordination with this proposal. It provides specific guidance to air agencies on how to develop base year inventories for the nonattainment area and attainment projected inventories for 8-hour ozone, PM
This section attempts to clarify the difference between the inventories required to be a part of a state's Moderate area attainment plan submission (as described earlier) and other modeling inventories that are also relevant for attainment planning. While the EPA is not proposing additional modeling inventory requirements in this rule (
As part of this demonstration, the EPA presumes that states will need to prepare attainment demonstration modeling inventories for both a modeled base year and projected attainment year. Respectively, these are called the “base year (baseline) inventory for modeling” and the “attainment projected inventory for modeling.” These inventories contain emissions for all regions (
The base year inventory and projected attainment year inventory include emissions from only within the nonattainment area. The EPA expects that modeling inventories will be consistent with those nonattainment area inventories; however, some exceptions may exist. Where possible, the nonattainment area base year and projected attainment year inventories can be a sum (for annual data) or average (for PM
The AERR includes both triennial and annual statewide reporting requirements, with more extensive reporting requirements for triennial inventory years. For the interim annual inventories, reporting is limited to emissions data from only the larger point sources (Type “A” sources), as defined by Appendix A of 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. For the triennial inventories, lower point source thresholds are given in Appendix A, consistent with the definition of major sources in 40 CFR part 70, and all other sources of emissions must be reported as nonpoint or mobile sources on a county basis.
In the past, some states have incorrectly asserted that their AERR submission meets the requirements for base year inventories required by past implementation rules. To avoid confusion, the EPA provides here the limited circumstances in which the AERR emissions inventories can meet the base year inventory for the nonattainment area requirement for Moderate areas. The following conditions must be met to use AERR inventories for attainment planning:
(a) The AERR emissions inventory must have gone through the public review process required for attainment plans.
(b) The AERR emissions inventory needs to include all sources of emissions and all pollutants required for the base year inventory for the nonattainment area. This is only possible if the inventory year for the base year inventory for the nonattainment area aligns with a triennial AERR year, because the data system implementing the AERR only accepts emissions from point sources and not other source categories in non-triennial years.
(c) The EPA must be accepting data for the inventory year. Inventories are allowed to be submitted to the AERR for a given year for only a limited time during the development cycle of the National Emissions Inventory.
(d) The AERR submission must include emissions from all relevant sources as described for the base year inventory for the nonattainment area requirements. In some cases, the AERR requirement can be met without electronically “submitting” emissions, which would not meet the requirements for the base year inventory for the nonattainment area. For example, states may elect to accept the EPA estimates for some nonpoint emissions sectors,
A key part of emissions inventory development includes estimating mobile source emissions. For all of the mobile source inventories used for PM
The most current version of the NONROAD model should be used for estimates of nonroad mobile source emissions, preferably with state-supplied model input data. States can alternatively develop technologically equivalent or superior state-specific nonroad emissions estimates, but should explain why their approach gives a better estimate than the EPA model. For nonroad sources not estimated by the NONROAD model, the best available methods should be used, and the EPA recommends that states refer to the SIP Emissions Inventory Guidance for more information on emissions from these sources. Links to
In the past, there have been instances where portions of tribal areas have been included in designated nonattainment areas, but when the base year inventory for the nonattainment area was prepared, emissions from the tribal lands were not included. This has had the effect of preventing tribes from generating emissions reductions from existing sources to develop emissions offsets, as well as impairing the ability of the state to prepare as accurate a modeling demonstration as possible. It could also cause sources in tribal areas to remain uncontrolled even though they are contributing to violations in a given nonattainment area. The EPA encourages states and tribes to work together to ensure that the information used in developing the baseline emissions inventory is inclusive of all emissions from a designated nonattainment area, including emissions from sources in tribal areas located therein.
Under subpart 4 of the CAA, air agencies are initially required to analyze and evaluate emissions reduction measures for all sources of direct PM
In addition, while evaluating sources of direct PM
• Option 1: Two independent analyses: (a) an attainment planning analysis demonstrating that control measures for a particular precursor are not needed for expeditious attainment, meaning that the precursor can be excluded from measures needed to attain as expeditiously as practicable for all types of sources; and, (b) a section 189(e) technical demonstration showing that major stationary sources of a particular precursor do not contribute significantly to levels that exceed the PM
• Option 2: Single analysis demonstrating that all emissions of a particular precursor from within the area do not significantly contribute to PM
• Option 3: An attainment planning analysis demonstrating that control measures for all types of sources of a particular precursor are not needed for expeditious attainment also would be deemed to meet the section 189(e) technical demonstration requirement, meaning that the state would not need to regulate emissions of the particular precursor from major stationary sources under the NNSR permitting program or other control requirements for major stationary sources.
The EPA will finalize its approach to PM
The statutory attainment planning requirements of subparts 1 and 4 were established to ensure that the following goals of the CAA are met: (i) That states implement measures that provide for attainment of the PM
With this in mind, the following sections describe the EPA's proposed approach for a state to follow in order to identify and select the complete suite of measures needed for an attainment plan submission for a Moderate PM
As discussed in Section II.D.6 of this preamble, one important component of a state's control strategy for a PM
a.
The terms RACM and RACT are not defined within subpart 4, nor do the provisions of subpart 4 specify how states are to meet the RACM and RACT requirements. However, the EPA's longstanding guidance in the General Preamble described in detail considerations for determining what control measures constitute RACM and RACT for purposes of subpart 4. The EPA's guidance for RACM for sources of PM
With respect to RACT requirements, the EPA's guidance in the General Preamble: (i) noted that RACT has historically been defined as “the lowest emission limit that a source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility”; (ii) Noted that RACT generally applies to stationary sources, both stack and fugitive emissions; (iii) suggested that major stationary sources be the minimum starting point for a state's RACT analysis; and, (iv) recommended that states evaluate RACT not only for major stationary sources, but for other source categories as needed for attainment and considering the feasibility of controls.
In addition to the statutory requirements under sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) for RACM and RACT, section 172(c)(6) requires that a state's attainment plan for a nonattainment area “include enforceable emission limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emission rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment of such standard in such area by the applicable attainment date specified in this part.” The EPA interprets this statutory provision to require a state to identify, select and implement additional measures to those identified as RACM and RACT for the area if needed to provide for timely attainment of the area. In the EPA's proposed approach detailed in this section, the EPA describes criteria for identifying and selecting “additional reasonable measures” for sources of direct PM
b.
Specifically, the EPA proposes that a state must follow a process by which it would: (i) Identify all sources of emissions of direct PM
The statutory attainment date for Moderate nonattainment areas is as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than the end of the sixth calendar year after designation of the area as nonattainment. In the case of Moderate areas that can reach attainment by the statutory attainment date, and consistent with existing policies, states would be required to evaluate the combined effect of reasonably available control measures that are not necessary to demonstrate attainment within the maximum statutory timeframe to determine whether implementation of the remaining measures could advance the attainment date by at least 1 year. The EPA has long applied this particular test—whether reasonably available control measures that were not necessary to demonstrate attainment within the maximum statutory timeframe, collectively can advance an area's applicable attainment date by at least 1 year—to satisfy the statutory provision related to an area demonstrating attainment “as expeditiously as practicable.”
The following discussion provides further detail on the specific steps and criteria that the EPA proposes states must apply when making their determinations for RACM and RACT and additional reasonable measures. The EPA seeks comment on the proposed steps, criteria and
Step 1: Identify sources to be controlled and existing and potential control measures
i.
The EPA proposes to require that a state must look at all of the sources reflected in the nonattainment area's base year inventory as part of the first step in identifying reasonable control measures for the area, as each of these sources may play a role in the area's PM
ii.
As with RACM for PM
The EPA notes that there are some challenges in establishing
(1) Defining source categories. Source categories, in particular for stationary sources, can be defined very broadly or narrowly, and the definition could determine which sources are able to meet the thresholds for
Defining source categories by NAICS codes would still require a determination of how broadly to set the source category boundaries as NAICS codes with fewer digits represent larger source categories (
(2) Determining the appropriate threshold for
The EPA therefore proposes two options regarding the threshold for
Under the second option, the EPA proposes to establish a nationally applicable
The EPA is requesting comment on the appropriateness of including
iii.
Furthermore, the EPA believes that reducing air emissions may not justify adversely affecting other resources, for example, by increasing pollution in bodies of water, creating additional solid waste disposal problems or creating excessive energy demands. An otherwise available control technology may not be reasonable if these other environmental impacts are sufficiently adverse and cannot reasonably be mitigated. The EPA proposes that a state may consider a control measure for direct PM
Generally, this proposed approach allows states to apply reasoned judgment as they identify potential control measures for sources of direct PM
(1) Existing control measures. The EPA proposes that, as a starting point, a state must include in its initial list of control measures those measures and technologies that are being implemented or will be implemented due to promulgated and/or adopted (
The EPA recognizes that for some sources located in a Moderate PM
(2) Potential control measures. In addition to identifying existing control measures for sources in a Moderate PM
The RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) provides a central database of air pollution technology information (including past RACT, BACT and LAER decisions contained in NSR permits) to promote the sharing of information among permitting agencies and to aid in future case-by-case control measure determinations. The RBLC permit database contains over 5,000 determinations that can help a state identify appropriate technologies to mitigate most air pollutant emission streams. The RBLC includes data submitted by several U.S. territories and all 50 states on over 200 different air pollutants and 1,000 industrial processes. The RBLC can be found at:
Additionally, the EPA maintains a Web site with links to other online sources of information on control measures for states to consider.
(3) RACM for managing emissions from wildfire and prescribed fire. Wildfire emissions account for a large portion of direct PM
If wildfire impacts are significant, contributing to exceedances of the standard, the EPA proposes that air agencies should consider RACM for this source. Fires play an important ecological role across the globe, benefiting those plant and animal species that depend upon natural fires for propagation, habitat restoration, and reproduction. Fires are one tool that can be used to reduce fuel load, unnatural understory, and tree density, helping to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires. Some wildfires and the use of prescribed fire can influence the occurrence of catastrophic wildfires which may reduce the probability of fire-induced smoke impacts and subsequent health effects. RACM must be determined for each area on a case-by-case basis. Possible RACM for wildfire may include measures that reduce wildland fuels through fuels management, including the use of prescribed fire and possibly allowing some wildfire to occur naturally in systems that are ecologically fire
(4) RACT for EGUs. Through guidance in the preamble to the 2007 PM
In June 2007, the EPA received a petition for reconsideration questioning the legality of this presumption, which the D.C. Circuit later found to be unlawful in the context of a similar presumption in the Phase 2 Ozone (NAAQS) Implementation Rule.
Accordingly, the EPA is not proposing any rebuttable presumption that the CAIR or any other regional control strategy constitutes RACM or RACT for EGUs or any other source category. Instead, the EPA is clarifying that in order to meet the RACM and RACT requirements for the PM
i.
ii.
The EPA seeks comment on the factors described above for states to consider when determining whether a control technology or measure is technologically feasible.
In the preamble to the 2007 PM
Specifically, the EPA proposes that for each technologically feasible control measure or technology, a state must evaluate the economic feasibility of the measure or control, through consideration of the capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, and cost effectiveness (
The EPA believes that it is appropriate for states to give substantial weight to cost effectiveness in evaluating the economic feasibility of an emission reduction measure or technology. The cost effectiveness of a measure is its annualized cost ($/year) divided by the emissions reduced (tons/year) which yields a cost per amount of emission reduction ($/ton). Cost effectiveness provides a relative value for each emissions reduction option that is comparable with other options and, in the case of control technologies, other facilities.
The EPA also seeks comment on an alternative cost effectiveness metric that would allow a state to take into account the effect of controlling a particular precursor on reducing PM
In considering what level of control is reasonable, the EPA is not proposing a fixed dollar per ton cost threshold for economic feasibility of controls identified as potential RACM and RACT. In addition, if a state contends that a source-specific control-level should not be established because the source(s) cannot afford the control measure or technology that is demonstrated to be economically feasible for other sources in its source category, the EPA proposes that the state must support the claim with information regarding the impact of imposing the identified control measure or technology on the following financial indicators, to the extent applicable:
1. Fixed and variable production costs ($/unit)
2. Product supply and demand elasticity
3. Product prices (cost absorption vs. cost pass-through)
4. Expected costs incurred by competitors
5. Company profits
6. Employment costs
7. Other costs (
The EPA seeks comment on the factors described above for states to consider when determining whether a control technology or measure is economically feasible.
The EPA thus proposes that a state must identify those technologically and economically feasible control measures and technologies that it can implement fully or partially within 4 years of designation of its Moderate PM
In addition, the EPA proposes that a state must separately identify those technologically and economically feasible control measures that can only be implemented after the statutory window for implementing RACM and RACT. The statutory 4-year timing requirement for implementing RACM and RACT under section 189(a)(1)(C) limits the control measures and technologies that can qualify as RACM and RACT for a Moderate PM
Under this approach, the state may reject any otherwise technologically or economically feasible measures that are not needed to demonstrate attainment or that will not advance the attainment date by at least 1 year. That is, for a Moderate area that can demonstrate attainment by the statutory Moderate area attainment date, the EPA proposes to define as “reasonable” only those technologically and economically feasible measures that are necessary for expeditious attainment of the NAAQS, as the CAA does not require a state to adopt measures that are not needed for expeditious attainment in a Moderate PM
The EPA recognizes that identifying which measures could not collectively advance the attainment date for a Moderate area by at least 1 year may be an iterative process that requires additional analysis and/or modeling. The agency believes that such effort is reasonable for a state seeking to demonstrate the lack of need for certain controls that are determined to be technologically and economically feasible in light of the requirement for expeditious attainment in a given Moderate nonattainment area. The basis for deciding that it would be reasonable not to require imposition of otherwise available and appropriate controls because they would not be needed for attainment, or would not advance attainment, requires a suitably robust analysis and explanation.
Existing guidance in the General Preamble on implementing this section of the CAA states that “the EPA believes it is reasonable for all available control measures that are technologically and economically feasible to be adopted for areas that do not demonstrate attainment [by the applicable attainment date].”
Consistent with the EPA's long-standing interpretation that subpart 4 Moderate area control requirements must be reasonable, the EPA proposes that, for a Moderate PM
The EPA also proposes an alternative approach to identifying all reasonable control measures for a Moderate nonattainment area that cannot practicably attain the PM
As described in Section III of this preamble, the EPA is proposing three options for implementing CAA requirements applicable to PM
The EPA's proposed analytical process for determining RACM and RACT is intended to result in a comprehensive list of such technologically and economically feasible controls that would include local and state measures that could achieve emissions reductions from sources within the area, beyond those that could or would be achieved through regional or national measures. Furthermore, the EPA is proposing to require that the Moderate area attainment plan must include modeling of all RACM and RACT and additional reasonable measures, and other state, regional and federal measures, to demonstrate that a state will not be able to attain the NAAQS by the end of the sixth calendar year after designation due to the severity of nonattainment in the area and/or due to the lack of availability or feasibility of implementing controls in the area by such date.
Subpart 4 requires that Moderate areas that cannot or do not meet the Moderate area attainment date be reclassified as Serious nonattainment areas, in which case sources in the areas are then subject to BACM and BACT requirements. In the General Preamble, the EPA indicated that “it may be reasonable, in some limited circumstances, for States to consider the compatibility of RACM and RACT with the BACM and BACT that will ultimately be implemented under the Serious area plans for those areas.”
To ensure that attainment plan submissions contain the necessary supporting information to enable the EPA to review and approve a state's evaluation and selection of measures that constitute RACM and RACT in a given nonattainment area, the EPA proposes to require under the authority of section 301(a) that a state must submit the following information as part of its submission:
• A list of all source categories, sources and activities in the nonattainment area that emit direct PM
• For each source category, source or activity in the nonattainment area, an inventory of direct PM
• For each non-
• For each potential control measure considered by the state but eliminated from further consideration due to a determination by the state that the control measure or technology was not technologically feasible, a narrative explanation and quantitative or qualitative supporting documentation to justify the state's conclusion;
• For each technologically feasible emission control measure or technology, the state must provide the following information relevant to economic feasibility: (1) The control efficiency by pollutant; (2) the possible emissions reductions by pollutant; (3) the estimated cost per ton of pollutant reduced; and, (4) a determination of whether the measure is economically feasible, with narrative explanation and quantitative supporting documentation to justify the state's conclusion.
• For each technologically and economically feasible emission control measure or technology, the date by which the technology or measure could reasonably be implemented.
Each of these elements will provide information needed by the EPA to evaluate correctly and efficiently whether the state is meeting the statutory requirements for an attainment plan, and in particular meeting the statutory requirement for states to implement RACM and RACT on sources within the nonattainment area. The EPA recognizes that the base year emissions inventory for the area that the state submits in conjunction with its attainment plan will likely contain some of the information proposed to be required under the first two items in this list. However, the EPA believes that it is incumbent on the state to ensure that the information needed for the EPA to evaluate the state's RACM and RACT analysis is presented more specifically as part of the RACM and RACT analysis and in a format that provides transparency, consistency and the ability for another party to evaluate the state's analysis effectively. For this reason, the EPA is including emissions inventory information specifically relevant to the RACM and RACT element of the state's attainment plan.
After a state has identified a particular control measure as RACM or RACT or additional reasonable measure for a particular nonattainment area, it must
First, the base year emissions from the source or group of sources to which the control measure applies and the future year projected emissions from those sources once controlled must be quantifiable so that the projected emissions reductions from the sources can be attributed to the specific measures being implemented. It is important that the emissions from the source category in question are accurately represented in the base year inventory so that emissions reductions are properly calculated. In particular, it is especially important to ensure that both the filterable and condensable components of direct PM
Second, the control measures must be enforceable. This means that they must specify clear, unambiguous and measurable requirements. The measurable requirements for larger emitting facilities must include periodic source testing, monitoring or other viable means to establish whether the affected source meets the applicable emission limit. Additionally, to verify the continued performance of the control measure, specific emissions monitoring programs appropriate for the type of control measure employed and the level of emissions must be included to verify the continued performance of the control measure. The control measures and monitoring program must also have been adopted according to proper legal procedures.
Third, the results of application of the control measures must be replicable. This means that where a rule contains procedures for interpreting, changing or determining compliance with the rule, the procedures are sufficiently specific and objective so that two independent entities applying the procedures would obtain the same result.
Fourth, the control measures must be accountable. This means, for example, that source-specific emission limits must be permanent and must reflect the assumptions used in the attainment plan for the area, including the modeling conducted in conjunction with the attainment demonstration. It also means that the attainment plan must establish requirements to track emissions changes at sources and provide for corrective action if emissions reductions are not achieved according to the plan.
The EPA seeks comment on these criteria for approval of any control measures adopted by a state for a Moderate area to assure that such measures are legally enforceable.
States in multi-state nonattainment areas will need to consult with each other on appropriate control measures for the shared nonattainment area. The agency anticipates that states could decide upon RACM and RACT and additional reasonable measures that differ from state to state in a shared nonattainment area, based upon each state's determination of the most effective strategies given the relevant mixture of sources and potential controls in the respective states' portions of a shared nonattainment area. As long as each state can adequately demonstrate that its chosen attainment strategy, including its selection and adoption of RACM and RACT and additional reasonable measures, will provide for meeting RFP requirements and for attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable for the nonattainment area at issue, the EPA anticipates being able to approve individual state plans that may elect to control a different mix of sources or to implement different controls, under the proper circumstances. Nevertheless, in evaluating RACM and RACT and additional reasonable measures for a particular nonattainment area, states must consider potential reasonable control measures developed for other areas or other states, and particularly for other portions of an interstate nonattainment area. In addition, states in multi-state nonattainment areas must evaluate whether the reasonable measures each state may have identified as not being necessary for attainment could collectively advance the attainment date for the area by at least 1 year. The EPA may consider such measures in assessing the approvability of each state's individual attainment plan for a multistate nonattainment area.
The EPA strongly urges states to consider environmental justice concerns with respect to any control measures they have identified as potential RACM or RACT or additional reasonable measures in an area, particularly to the extent that control measures that a state may be considering are otherwise approximately equal (in terms of technological and economic feasibility) but unequal with respect to their direct or indirect impacts on overburdened populations.
Section 189(a) generally requires a state with a designated Moderate nonattainment area to submit an attainment plan for such area. As discussed earlier, section 189(a)(1)(B) more specifically requires the state to submit an attainment demonstration including air quality modeling to establish either: (i) That the area will attain the relevant NAAQS by the applicable attainment date; or, (ii) that it is impracticable for the area to attain the relevant NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. For Moderate nonattainment areas, the attainment date is as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the end of the sixth calendar year after designation as nonattainment. Section 189(a)(2)(B) of the CAA requires states with designated nonattainment areas to submit attainment plans no later than 18 months after designation.
Section 189(a)(2)(B) does not define the term “demonstration” and does not specify precisely how a state should make the required demonstration. Thus, the EPA believes it is necessary to provide more specific parameters for such demonstrations in order to assure that they contain the requisite information to allow for meaningful evaluation of the issues that the demonstrations are intended to address. An attainment demonstration is a set of analyses that provide an explanation of how a state will attain the PM
A state may alternatively submit a demonstration that shows that attainment by the statutory attainment date for a Moderate area is impracticable.
States are required to submit air quality modeling in support of an attainment demonstration for a Moderate PM
There may be limited cases in which a state may be able to demonstrate through a rigorous technical analysis with supporting documentation that attainment by the statutory Moderate area attainment date is impracticable. Given that the statute may be interpreted as not requiring air quality modeling for an impracticability demonstration, the EPA proposes and seeks comment on an alternative option under which air quality modeling would not be a requirement for a Moderate area impracticability demonstration. The EPA would recommend that a state submit modeling as part of any Moderate area impracticability demonstration, but under this alternative option such modeling would not be a regulatory requirement.
Given that secondarily formed PM
The EPA believes that the statutory provision requiring attainment demonstrations for Moderate PM
New modeling analyses that follow the EPA modeling guidance, conducted by the state for implementing the PM
In addition to local and regional modeling, the EPA conducts nationwide modeling (generally limited to the contiguous 48 states) in support of various national rulemakings. The base and future modeling year for national rule modeling varies depending on compliance dates for the rule being analyzed and on when the modeling was conducted. For example, there are several analyses of recent and ongoing rules which may provide useful PM
States may be able to use regional and/or EPA modeling to demonstrate that specific nonattainment areas will attain the relevant PM
The EPA requests comment on how states can use existing regional and/or national modeling to meet their attainment demonstration requirements. The agency also notes that even when regional or EPA modeling is available to show that an area is expected to attain the PM
Because it will be challenging for states to prepare new modeling analyses to meet the submission deadline for the Moderate area attainment plans, the EPA encourages states to start work on modeling analyses as soon as possible, in order to ensure that adequate time is devoted to developing a technically credible attainment demonstration. States that have the most challenging PM
The procedures for modeling PM
The PM
The EPA is not requiring a specific model for use in the attainment demonstration for the PM
In some cases, a state may need to apply multiple models in the attainment demonstration. In most cases, a photochemical grid model is needed to predict base and future year concentrations of secondary PM
Models are used to test whether control measures in an attainment plan are likely to result in attainment of the relevant standard(s). The attainment demonstration modeling guidance recommends a modeled attainment test for the annual and 24-hour PM
Because PM
The attainment demonstration modeling guidance contains additional details regarding the treatment of PM
The modeling guidance also describes the opportunity for states to supplement their modeling with a “weight of evidence” demonstration. States may use other information and analyses, in addition to the modeled attainment test, to estimate whether future attainment of the NAAQS in an area is likely. Other analyses may include, but are not limited to, emissions trends, ambient data trends and analyses, other modeling analyses, and documentation of other non-modeled emissions control strategies, including voluntary programs.
The reliability of tests for estimating future attainment depends upon having reliable databases for inputs to those tests. The modeling guidance identifies and prioritizes key data-gathering activities and analytical capabilities that will increase credibility of analyses used to estimate if the NAAQS will be attained in the area by the statutory attainment date.
The EPA is considering updates to the modeling guidance to address PM
The application of air quality models requires a substantial effort by state and local agencies. Therefore, states should work closely with their respective EPA Regional Office in executing each step of the modeling process. Doing so will ensure that states know what EPA analyses they can rely on, if they wish, to simplify this task, and it will increase the likelihood of the EPA's approval of a state's demonstration submitted at the end of the modeling and overall attainment plan development process.
The 2012 PM
As explained in the 2012 PM
Under the 2007 PM
The EPA is proposing four possible approaches to demonstrating attainment in unmonitored areas. Option 1 would only require states to perform the attainment test at locations that have current or recent FRM and/or FEM monitoring data. The EPA would not require states to analyze areas that have no monitoring data with which to anchor the attainment demonstration modeling results. The EPA is proposing this approach to evaluating monitored and unmonitored areas in order to be consistent with how attainment of the PM
In addition, the “relative” attainment test for PM
Proposed Option 2 for unmonitored area analyses would require the state to conduct an unmonitored area analysis as part of all attainment demonstrations (for Moderate and Serious areas) and require the state to eliminate potential violations in unmonitored areas through enforceable emissions reductions in the SIP. The requirement would be based on a premise that states must demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS in all locations of a nonattainment area, and models can and should be used for that purpose. Modeled attainment demonstrations using photochemical grid models provide modeling results for all grid cells in the nonattainment area. Therefore, notwithstanding the uncertainty that is inherent to this approach as discussed above, model outputs (optionally combined with interpolated ambient data) could be used to derive estimates of PM
Proposed Option 3 would require states to show attainment at all current and recent monitoring locations. In addition, states would be required to provide an unmonitored area analysis as part of all attainment demonstrations (for Moderate and Serious areas). However, rather than requiring states to impose additional enforceable emissions reductions in the SIP to address potential violations in these locations, states would be required to use the unmonitored area analysis
The nature of the assessment of likelihood of violation that is required under proposed Option 3 would depend on local area modeling, but could include, as appropriate, elements such as an evaluation of the emissions inventory (particularly for local direct PM
In summary, Option 3 would clarify that an unmonitored area analysis would be required in all attainment demonstrations, and an assessment of the unmonitored area analysis results would be required as part of the attainment demonstration documentation. In contrast to Option 2, however, the unmonitored area analysis results would not be used as part of the specific analytical approach for determining whether a particular control strategy will result in the area attaining the NAAQS.
Finally, proposed Option 4 would require states to show attainment at all current and recent monitoring locations. States would not be required to provide an unmonitored area analysis as part of the attainment demonstration. However, the EPA would encourage states to use information available to them to consider what, if any, impacts may be occurring in unmonitored areas. States could consider information such as modeling data, emissions inventories or non-FEM monitoring data (such as from special purpose monitors or saturation monitoring studies) which may indicate potential high PM
The four options presented above would lead to a range of potential analysis costs by requiring attainment demonstrations at more locations and with varying degrees of specificity. To the extent that these analyses reveal additional locations with potential violations, the effort needed to address these violations could also be higher, and may ultimately lead to additional reductions, with their associated costs and benefits. In terms of analysis costs, Option 1 would be expected to be the least costly option, whereas Option 2 would be expected to be the most resource intensive. Option 3 is similar to Option 2, except that if a potential violation is indicated in an unmonitored area, there would not be a regulatory requirement for the air agency to identify enforceable controls to eliminate the potential violation. For example, the air agency could instead elect to site a new monitor to further characterize air quality in the area. The analysis costs associated with Option 3 would thus be similar to Option 2.
Option 4 most closely describes the current policy for the PM
The EPA's four proposed options reflect various combinations with respect to whether such an analysis is required and the purposes for which the state and the EPA might use the results of the analysis. The EPA requests comment on whether an unmonitored area analysis should be a required component of an attainment demonstration for a PM
A state performing a modeling analysis for an attainment demonstration or impracticability analysis must select a future year for the analysis. For an attainment demonstration, a state should select the future modeling year such that all control measures relied on for attainment will have been fully implemented by the beginning of that year. To demonstrate attainment, the modeling results for the nonattainment area must predict that emissions controls implemented no later than the beginning of the last calendar year preceding the attainment date will
While states should choose the future modeling year based on a number of factors, the EPA recommends the last possible year permitted under the statute as a starting point for modeling. There are several reasons for this. First, states with Moderate areas that submit an impracticability demonstration must show that the area cannot attain the NAAQS by the end of the sixth calendar year following designation of the area. Therefore, the appropriate future modeling year for such a demonstration is the sixth calendar year after designation. Even if a state does not submit (or does not intend to submit) an impracticability demonstration, modeling the sixth calendar year is a logical starting point to determine if attainment by that year is likely. Second, even though attainment is determined based on 3 years of ambient data, states do not have to model 2 years before the attainment date to show modeled attainment. Since the design value is an average of the annual or 98th percentile value for 3 consecutive years of data, attainment can still be shown even if concentrations exceed the NAAQS in one or more of the 3 years used to determine attainment (as long as the average of the three annual values is below the level of the NAAQS). Therefore, it can be appropriate to model any of the 3 years used to determine attainment. Third, if ambient data show attainment level concentrations in the final statutory attainment year, a state may be eligible for up to two 1-year extensions of the attainment date, if the area meets the criteria for such extensions under CAA section 188(d). Therefore, modeling attainment level concentrations for the last year permitted by statute is acceptable.
For all of the reasons stated above, it is both acceptable, and will in fact be most efficient, for a state to begin the attainment demonstration process by modeling the last year permitted under the statute to determine future year modeled PM
Because an area must attain “as expeditiously as practicable” according to the CAA, additional considerations are necessary before an attainment date can be established for a Moderate PM
If the future base case scenario does not demonstrate attainment, then a control case scenario is needed to examine whether the implementation of all technnologically and economically feasible measures identified by the state would result in attainment in 2021 (for purposes of this example based on the 2012 PM
The EPA believes that it is not reasonable to require states to model each and every calendar year to determine the appropriate attainment date for a nonattainment area. Developing and modeling future year inventories is a time-consuming and resource intensive process. Multiple emissions models are needed in order to generate year-specific emissions for the various emissions sectors (
In Section IV.D of this preamble, the EPA is proposing that if a state determines that a Moderate nonattainment area can attain the PM
The transportation conformity rule requires that attainment plans establish motor vehicle emissions budgets for the area's attainment year. Therefore, once an area's attainment date has been established, the state would establish motor vehicle emissions budgets for direct PM
“Reasonable further progress” (RFP) is a concept included in the CAA under part D, title I to assure that states make steady, incremental progress toward attaining air quality standards in the years prior to the attainment date for a nonattainment area, rather than merely deferring implementation of control measures and therefore emissions reductions until the date by which the standards are to be attained. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, section 172 of the CAA addresses nonattainment plan provisions in general. Section 172(c)(2) requires attainment plans to provide for RFP, which is defined in section 171(l) as “such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by [part D of title I] or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date.” Section 172(c)(3) requires the state plan to include “a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants
In general terms, the EPA interprets that the purpose of requiring RFP is to ensure that states with nonattainment areas develop attainment plans that achieve generally linear progress toward attainment, rather than deferring emissions reductions until the applicable attainment date for the area. In the context of implementing the PM
1. When pollutants are emitted by numerous and diverse sources.
2. Where the relationship between any individual source and the overall air quality is not explicitly quantified.
3. Where a chemical transformation is involved.
4. Where the emission reductions necessary to attain the standard are inventory-wide.
For example, a state with an area whose nonattainment problem is caused primarily by area sources, such as residential wood combustion, should be able to demonstrate generally linear progress toward attainment in that area. In such an area, the state might be able to require the replacement of a specified percentage of the residential woodstoves on an annual basis for each year to assure RFP on an annual basis.
The EPA's guidance in the Addendum also provided examples of situations in nonattainment areas in which it might be less appropriate to expect RFP to be linear, including:
1. Where there are a limited number of sources.
2. Where the relationships between individual sources and air quality are relatively well defined.
3. Where the emission control systems utilized (
In nonattainment areas characterized by any of these circumstances, the EPA understands that RFP may be better represented as step-wise progress as controls are implemented and achieve significant reductions soon thereafter. For example, if an area's nonattainment problem can be attributed to a few major stationary sources, the EPA's guidance indicates that “RFP should be met by `adherence to an ambitious compliance schedule' which is likely to periodically yield significant emission reductions.”
With respect to implementation schedules, the EPA recommended in the Addendum that to meet the statutory RFP requirements, attainment plans must include “detailed schedules for compliance with emission regulations in the [nonattainment] areas and accurately indicate the corresponding annual emission reductions to be realized from each milestone in the schedule. In reviewing the SIP, the EPA will determine whether the annual incremental emission reductions to be achieved are reasonable in light of the statutory objective to ensure timely attainment of the PM
The EPA believes that these prior interpretations of the Act's provisions for RFP continue to be appropriate for the PM
To satisfy the statutory requirements for RFP at section 172(c)(2), the EPA proposes that a state must submit an RFP plan as part of its Moderate area attainment plan submission. The RFP plan must contain appropriate information to demonstrate that adequate emissions reductions will be achieved through control measures in the attainment plan in order to meet the statutory definition of RFP. The plan must include an implementation schedule for control measures on sources in the nonattainment area and an analysis that demonstrates when—and through what control measures—emissions will decline from the applicable baseline year to the attainment year. As part of the analysis, the RFP plan must include a projected inventory for sources in the area for one (or more) interim year(s). The EPA is proposing and seeking comment on two options for developing an RFP plan, as well as on related requirements, as described below.
a.
Note that the two approaches presented in Option 1 for demonstrating RFP within the nonattainment area are consistent with the pattern of emissions reductions of many nationally-applicable federal emissions reduction measures. For example, new emission standards for mobile sources may achieve reductions in a generally linear manner over time, as a portion of the existing vehicle fleet is replaced each year with new vehicles meeting the more stringent standards. On the other hand, regulations to reduce emissions from certain stationary source sectors often have a single compliance date by which controls must be in place, which typically result in a significant drop in emissions over a relatively short period (
Because the statute does not clearly establish the applicable baseline year from which to begin calculating annual emissions reductions for purposes of demonstrating RFP, the EPA is proposing to require and seeks comment on a requirement that states use the same year as the base year inventory chosen for the area, as this inventory will serve as the basis for developing the control strategy necessary to bring the area into expeditious attainment. Furthermore, in developing their RFP analyses for specific nonattainment areas, the EPA expects that states will use the emissions inventories developed for those areas and air quality modeling they have completed for attainment planning purposes. This approach is consistent with the EPA's proposed approach, described later in this section, not to interpret the CAA as allowing states to take credit for emissions reductions from sources outside a nonattainment area when developing their plan to meet the statutory RFP requirements for PM
For states with Moderate areas that cannot demonstrate attainment by the statutory Moderate area attainment date, the statutory RFP requirements still apply. However, the EPA proposes to require that, for such areas, the state must provide an analysis of the anticipated emissions reductions associated with implementing the control measures identified as RACM and RACT and additional reasonable measures for the area. The EPA notes that even if a state adequately demonstrates that it cannot attain the NAAQS in a given area by the statutory attainment date, the CAA still requires the state to submit a Moderate area attainment plan meeting the requirements for such attainment plans, including for RFP. An additional RFP analysis will be required as part of the Serious attainment plan for the area once the EPA reclassifies it to Serious.
Similar to the approach taken for RFP in the remanded 2007 PM
The EPA recognizes that different control measures address different pollutants, and that states may be able to implement some measures more quickly than others. Thus, in the optional secondary analysis, the state could present a different combination of emissions reductions at similar time intervals that would provide an equivalent or better result in terms of net air quality improvement. This “equivalency determination” would allow states flexibility to address different pollutants (
As discussed above, the primary approach for ensuring that RFP is met in a PM
The EPA proposes that states must provide an implementation schedule for control measures that would achieve emissions reductions consistent with those calculated as part of the RFP benchmark analysis. However, a state could choose to submit an “equivalency” analysis in addition to the RFP benchmark analysis and associated implementation schedule that presents an alternative combination of pollutant emission reductions (
The EPA continues to recognize that because atmospheric processes are quite complex, a specific percent change in emissions of PM
The second step in developing an RFP plan under this second proposed option would be for the state to calculate the emissions reductions that would be achieved by all measures implemented on sources in the area corresponding with quantitative milestone dates (
The third step under this proposed option would be for the state to conduct modeling or employ another quantitative method to predict the overall PM
This simplified approach to determining RFP for a Moderate nonattainment area could apply equally well to areas that can demonstrate attainment with the relevant NAAQS by the statutory attainment date and those that cannot.
The EPA proposes that a state with a Moderate PM
The transportation conformity rule requires that attainment plans establish motor vehicle emissions budgets. RFP plans submitted as part of an attainment plan submission would therefore be required to establish motor vehicle emissions budgets for direct PM
The EPA is proposing that the RFP demonstration to be included with a state's PM
In the preamble to the remanded 2007 PM
Under the policy in the 2007 PM
Both the 2005 Phase 2 ozone implementation rule and the 2007 PM
In light of this court decision, the EPA has determined that the best reading of the statute would be to interpret the term “sources in the area” in the same manner where it appears in different nonattainment provisions for ozone. The term appears in CAA section 182 (requirements for ozone nonattainment areas) with regard to RFP as well as RACT. The decision on the Phase 2 ozone rule found that section 182(b)(2) requires that a SIP must provide for implementation of RACT (under section 172(c)) for emissions sources “in the area,” meaning in the nonattainment area. Similarly, the EPA believes that when section 182(b)(1)(A)-(B) defines baseline emissions for RFP as “the total amount of actual VOC or NO
With regard to the 2007 PM
Specifically, the EPA believes that the DC Circuit's interpretation of the phrase “sources in the area” applies to RACT and RFP requirements for both the ozone NAAQS and the PM
The EPA believes that the most appropriate approach with regard to the geographic area required to be covered for demonstrating RFP in a PM
Second, a policy allowing the geographic area of the RFP plan to be larger than the nonattainment area would conflict with a key provision of subpart 4 which requires annual incremental reductions in emissions from sources within the nonattainment area. Under subpart 4, an area that fails to attain the standard by the Serious area attainment date is then subject to the provisions of section 189(d). Section 189(d) specifies that the state must submit a plan revision within 12 months which provides for “an annual reduction in PM
After reconsideration of the approach to RFP that was opposed in the petition for reconsideration of the 2007 PM
In general, the EPA seeks to ensure that PM
The EPA's proposed approach for states to meet the RFP requirement is designed to ensure emissions reductions will yield incremental improvements in air quality on the path to attainment, while being sufficiently flexible to accommodate the range of control strategies necessary to address the complex mixtures of pollutants comprising PM
Section 189(c)(1) requires that a PM
The EPA has previously described its interpretation of the requirements under section 189(c) for the PM
The EPA's existing guidance in the Addendum with respect to the quantitative milestone requirements of CAA section 189(c) thus includes several important features: (i) That the control measures comprising the RFP plan should be implemented and in place to meet the statutory quantitative emissions reductions milestone requirement; (ii) that it is reasonable for the 3-year periods for quantitative milestones to run from the statutory due date for the Moderate area attainment plan submission; and, (iii) that the precise form that the quantitative milestones should take is not specified, but the state must choose milestones that will allow it to quantify or measure, track and report progress adequately and objectively.
The EPA's proposed approach to identifying quantitative milestones for any Moderate PM
The statute at section 189(c) is clear that quantitative milestones must be achieved every 3 years, however it does not make clear the starting date for counting the 3 year periods. In the General Preamble, the agency proposed that quantitative milestones must be achieved every 3 years starting from the attainment plan submission due date (
The EPA is also proposing that the quantitative milestones contained in the attainment plan for a Moderate nonattainment area must be constructed such that they can be tracked, quantified and/or measured adequately in order for the state to meet its milestone reporting obligations, which come due 90 days after a given milestone date. In the Addendum, the EPA suggested some possible metrics that “support and demonstrate how the overall quantitative milestones identified for an area may be met,” such as percent implementation of control strategies, percent compliance with implemented control measures, and adherence to a compliance schedule. This list was not exclusive or exhaustive but reflected the EPA's view that the purpose of the quantitative milestone requirement is to provide an objective way to assess that the state is making the necessary progress towards attainment in the area by the applicable attainment date.
The EPA therefore proposes to require that states select the quantitative milestones that are appropriate and quantifiable and that will provide for objective evaluation of progress toward attainment in their Moderate PM
In addition to this general proposed approach for selecting quantitative milestones for a Moderate nonattainment area, the EPA is proposing and seeks comment on a requirement that, at a minimum, states must include in all attainment plans for Moderate PM
Under the quantitative milestone requirement of section 189(c)(2), a state must demonstrate to the EPA that the RFP plan for the area and its approved milestones are being met within 90 days after the milestone due date. The EPA then has 90 days to determine whether or not a state's demonstration is adequate. Specifically, section 189(c)(2) requires that: “Not later than 90 days after the date on which a milestone applicable to the area occurs, each State in which all or part of such [nonattainment] area is located shall submit to the Administrator a demonstration that all measures in the plan approved under this section have been implemented and that the milestone has been met. A demonstration under this subsection shall be submitted in such form and manner, and shall contain such information and analysis, as the Administrator shall require.”
In the event a state fails to submit a milestone demonstration report by the due date or the EPA determines that a milestone was not met, the state must submit a SIP revision within 9 months of either the missed reporting deadline or the EPA's determination of the state's failure to meet a milestone. According to the statutory requirements of section 189(c)(3), the new SIP revision must assure “that the State will achieve the next milestone (or attain the national ambient air quality standard . . ., if there is no next milestone) by the applicable date.” If a state fails to make a SIP submission to correct a failure to meet RFP expeditiously, sanctions under sections 110(m) and 179(b) may apply. If a state is unable to correct a failure to meet RFP, this may be evidence that the state cannot practicably attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date and may serve as a basis for reclassification of the area to Serious under the agency's discretionary authority.
Because the statute does not define the parameters of these demonstrations, the statute grants the EPA discretion to determine the components of the required demonstration and the form and manner for submission. In the Addendum, the EPA offered guidance about what the milestone report should contain: “This report must contain technical support sufficient to document completion statistics for appropriate milestones. For example, the demonstration should graphically display RFP over the course of the relevant 3 years and indicate how the emission reductions achieved to date compare to those required or scheduled to meet RFP and the required [quantitative] milestones. The calculations (and any assumptions made) necessary to determine the emission reductions to date should also be submitted. The demonstration should also contain an evaluation of whether the PM
First, the report must include a certification by the Governor or Governor's designee that the state's attainment plan control strategy, including the RFP plan, is being implemented as described in the applicable attainment plan. Second, as described in the Addendum, the report must contain technical support, including calculations, sufficient to document completion statistics for appropriate milestones and to demonstrate that the quantitative milestones have been satisfied and how the emissions reductions achieved to date compare to those required or scheduled to meet RFP. Third, the state must submit an air quality screening analysis to determine if measured air quality progress is consistent with the expected air quality improvement target correlated with the RFP emissions reductions for the previous 3-year period. Fourth, the report must contain an evaluation of whether the PM
The EPA stated in the Addendum that the milestone report must be submitted from the Governor or Governor's designee to the Regional Administrator of the respective EPA Regional Office serving the submitting state, and that the EPA will notify the state of its determination (regarding whether or not the state's report is adequate) by sending a letter to the appropriate Governor or Governor's designee. The EPA believes that it would be appropriate for states to submit milestone reports, including supporting documents, through the agency's electronic SIP (eSIP) submission system in order to simplify the process and reduce resource burden on all sides. The EPA seeks comment on how electronic reporting could facilitate a state's submittal of the required milestone report, how it could accommodate the various narrative and
States with PM
The EPA does not believe that the D.C. Circuit's decision in
The EPA is proposing and seeking comment on the following general requirements for contingency measures to be approvable as part of a state's Moderate area attainment plan submission for the PM
1. Contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures that are ready to be implemented quickly upon a determination by the Administrator of the nonattainment area's failure to meet RFP or failure to meet the standard by its attainment date.
2. The state's attainment plan submission must contain trigger mechanisms for the contingency measures, specify a schedule for implementation, and indicate that the measures will be implemented with minimal further action by the state or by the EPA.
3. Contingency measures must consist of control measures that are not otherwise included in the control strategy for the attainment plan.
4. Contingency measures must provide for emissions reductions approximately equivalent to 1 year's worth of reductions needed for RFP, based on the overall level of reductions needed to demonstrate attainment divided by the number of years from the base year to the attainment year, or approximately equivalent to 1 year's worth of air quality improvement or emissions reductions proportional to the overall amount of air quality improvement or emissions reductions to be achieved by the area's attainment plan.
The EPA interprets the contingency measure requirement of section 172(c)(9) to require control measures that are not already included in the attainment plan for other purposes, such as to meet RACM and RACT requirements. However, suitable contingency measures may be measures that were technologically and economically feasible for the area, but did not qualify as RACM or RACT or additional reasonable measures for one or more reasons. For example, a candidate contingency measure may have been deemed technologically and economically feasible, but it was not needed to achieve expeditious attainment in a Moderate area for which the state could demonstrate attainment by the statutory attainment date and therefore was not included as part of the attainment demonstration for the area. The agency believes it is important that states make decisions concerning contingency measures in conjunction with their determination of the overall control strategy for bringing the area into expeditious attainment, and that states first must identify those control measures needed in order to demonstrate expeditious attainment of the standards; any remaining measures should then be considered as candidates for contingency measures.
For Moderate areas that cannot practicably attain the NAAQS by the statutory attainment date, the EPA is proposing that states must implement all control measures that they determine to be reasonable for sources in the area. In such cases, the EPA expects that contingency measures for such nonattainment areas would necessarily exceed the criteria for determining whether a measure is reasonable (
The EPA proposes that for any Moderate PM
The EPA recognizes that some states have historically relied on emissions reductions achieved through the implementation of control measures in excess of what was determined to be necessary to meet RFP in certain PM
As mentioned earlier, contingency measures should represent a portion of the actual emissions reductions necessary to bring about attainment in the area. Consistent with the EPA's past approach for contingency measures for PM
The CAA requires that states must implement contingency measures after the EPA determines that the area has either failed to meet RFP requirements, or failed to attain the standards by the applicable attainment date. The purpose of the contingency measure provision is to ensure that corrective measures are put in place automatically at the time that the EPA makes its determination that an area has either failed to meet RFP or failed to meet the standard by its attainment date. The EPA is required to determine within 90 days after receiving a state's milestone demonstration, and within 6 months after the attainment date for an area, whether these requirements have been met. The consequences for states with areas that fail to attain the NAAQS or to meet RFP are described in section 179(d) of the CAA and discussed in Section V of this preamble.
As noted earlier in this section, the EPA proposes to require that states must submit contingency measures at the same time as the rest of the Moderate area attainment plan elements,
Section 188 establishes the attainment dates for Moderate and Serious PM
Section 179(c)(1) provides that the EPA is to base the attainment determination for an area upon an area's “air quality data as of the attainment date.” The EPA will make the determination of whether an area's air quality is meeting the PM
A Moderate PM
The EPA will begin processing and analyzing data related to the attainment of Moderate PM
While the EPA may determine that an area's air quality data indicates that an area may be meeting the PM
In order for an area to be redesignated as attainment, the state must comply with the five requirements listed under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Briefly, this section requires that:
• The EPA has determined that the area has met the PM
• The EPA has fully approved the applicable state implementation plan;
• The improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions;
• The EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area; and,
• The state(s) containing the area or portions of the area have met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D.
As noted earlier, section 188(c)(1) states that for a Moderate area, “the attainment date shall be as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the end of the sixth calendar year after the area's designation as nonattainment.” For purposes of clarity, the EPA proposes to interpret the reference to “the area's designation” in this provision as meaning “the area's effective date of designation,” consistent with the agency's approach for implementing the 1997 and 2006 PM
As described in Sections IV.D and IV.E of this preamble, in the case of a Moderate PM
The EPA's approach to approving an attainment date for a PM
The CAA under subpart 4 provides the EPA with authority to grant extensions of the attainment date for a Moderate area that otherwise could be found to have failed to attain the relevant PM
The provisions of section 188(d) thus allow a state an opportunity to demonstrate that a Moderate area should continue to be classified as
With respect to the criterion in section 188(d)(1) that requires that “the state has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation plan,” the EPA proposes to interpret this provision to mean that the state has implemented the control measures in the SIP submission it made to address the attainment plan requirements for the applicable PM
The EPA also proposes and seeks comment on an alternative interpretation of section 188(d)(1) that would require a state to have a Moderate area attainment plan fully approved by the EPA as meeting the applicable attainment plan requirements under sections 172 and 189 for a Moderate PM
The second criterion that states must meet to qualify for an extension relates to the monitored ambient air in a nonattainment area in the year prior to the attainment date for the area. If a state has met the requirements of section 188(d)(1), the EPA may grant an extension of a Moderate area's attainment date if the state also satisfies the requirements of section 188(d)(2) that “no more than one exceedance of the 24-hour national ambient air quality standard level for PM
The EPA believes that the references to the ambient air quality standards in section 188(d)(2) are ambiguous in two significant ways in the context of the PM
Additionally, the language of section 188(d)(2) may be considered ambiguous
The situation is distinctly different for PM
Due to the ambiguities associated with applying this subpart 4 requirement to current and future PM
The preferred proposed approach would only require a state to demonstrate that in the year prior to the applicable attainment date for the area, a Moderate area did not exceed the level of (
The EPA prefers the proposed interpretation (described in more detail later in this section) for implementing the Moderate area attainment date extension criteria of section 188(d)(2) considering the fact that, due to the specific atmospheric conditions and source-dependent nature of PM
a.
For example, under this proposed interpretation of section 188(d)(2), in the case of a state seeking an extension of the attainment date for a Moderate area designated nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM
Likewise under the EPA's preferred approach, a state seeking an attainment date extension for a Moderate nonattainment area for an annual PM
Under the EPA's preferred approach, if a state were to have an area that is designated nonattainment for both the 24-hour and the annual PM
The EPA believes this preferred interpretation of section 188(d)(2) is appropriate for two reasons. First, as discussed above, while most PM
Second, as discussed earlier, the statutory language that requires that a nonattainment area have “no more than one exceedance of the 24-hour” NAAQS level reflects a statistical form for the 24-hour PM
b.
For example, if a state seeks an extension of the attainment date for an area designated nonattainment only for the 2012 annual PM
The EPA presents this first alternative interpretation of the statute for two reasons. First, as noted earlier, the statute at section 188(b)(2) does not specify whether the air quality criteria for an attainment date extension apply for Moderate areas designated nonattainment for both the 24-hour and annual PM
Second, as with the proposed approach to interpreting section 188(d)(2), the EPA believes it is appropriate to interpret the statutory language regarding “no more than one exceedance of the 24-hour” NAAQS level broadly to mean that the area had clean data for the 24-hour PM
c.
The EPA believes that, while this interpretation of section 188(d)(2) may appear to be a straightforward reading of the statutory language, it does not reasonably account for the important differences between the statistical form of the PM
Regardless of which interpretation of section 188(d)(1) the EPA finalizes as part of this rulemaking, the EPA proposes to require states to submit sufficient information to demonstrate that they have complied with applicable requirements and commitments in the applicable implementation plan. This information would be needed in order for the EPA to make a decision on whether to grant a 1-year attainment date extension. The EPA would not be authorized to grant an attainment date extension to an area unless the state can demonstrate that it has met all of the requirements and commitments contained in the state's applicable implementation plan for the area. Under the EPA's first proposed approach for interpreting section 188(d)(1), a state would have to demonstrate that control measures have been submitted in the form of a SIP revision and that RACM and RACT and additional reasonable measures for sources in the area have been implemented. Under the agency's alternative proposal for interpreting section 188(b)(1), the attainment plan submitted by the state would have to have been fully approved by the EPA and the state would have to be in compliance with any elements required under any applicable FIP for the area. In addition, under the EPA's second proposed approach, the state would have to demonstrate that: (i) RACM and RACT and additional reasonable measures for sources in the area have been implemented, and (ii) the area has made emissions reductions progress that represents RFP toward attainment of the NAAQS and has met its quantitative milestones, and the state has submitted a milestone compliance demonstration (milestone report) to that effect if due. Any decision made by the EPA to extend the attainment date for an area would be based on facts specific to the nonattainment area at issue.
Section 188(d) does not specify the process by which the EPA should evaluate and act upon requests from states for an extension of the Moderate area attainment date. However, the EPA proposes that an attainment date extension would only be granted after the agency provides notice in the
Because air quality criteria are part of the conditions that must be met in order for the EPA to grant a Moderate area attainment date extension, the EPA proposes to require that a state seeking such an extension must submit its complete attainment date extension request, including any available preliminary data for the year preceding the area's applicable Moderate attainment date, on or before the area's attainment date. The EPA also proposes to require that the state requesting such an extension must submit to the respective EPA Regional Office certified ambient PM
As noted earlier in this discussion of Moderate area attainment date extensions, the statute at section 188(d) provides that a state may seek up to two 1-year extensions of the Moderate area attainment date if it meets the applicable criteria of sections 188(d)(1) and 188(d)(2). The statute makes no distinction between the criteria that must be met for the first 1-year extension and the criteria for the second 1-year extension, therefore the EPA plans to apply the same interpretations of the statutory criteria proposed throughout this section, including the proposed deadlines for the state to submit the extension request and the certified air quality data, for purposes of a state seeking a second 1-year attainment date extension for a Moderate nonattainment area.
The EPA seeks comment on the proposed approaches described above for interpreting the criteria of section 188(d)(1) and 188(d)(2) and establishing a process for states to request attainment date extensions for Moderate areas.
As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, subpart 4, part D of title I of the CAA establishes a two-tier classification system for areas designated nonattainment for the PM
The EPA's discretionary authority to reclassify a Moderate area to Serious derives from language in section 188(b)(1) of the CAA which provides that: “The Administrator may reclassify as a Serious PM
The CAA does not specify the basis on which the EPA may make the determination that the area cannot practicably attain by the applicable attainment date. In the General Preamble, the EPA explained that the agency could base this determination upon whatever factors are pertinent and do so whether or not the state in question has submitted a Moderate area attainment plan, and whether or not the state has made the demonstration contemplated in section 189(a)(1)(B).
Section 188(b)(1)(B) does establish mandatory timeframes by which EPA must act if it intends to exercise its discretionary authority to reclassify areas as appropriate following the Moderate area attainment plan due date, stating that “the Administrator shall reclassify appropriate areas within 18 months after the required date for the state's submission of a SIP for the Moderate Area.” In the case of areas designated nonattainment for the 2012 PM
As noted above, the EPA believes that while a Moderate area impracticability demonstration as contemplated in section 189(a)(1)(B) is desirable in order to help the agency make a determination that the area cannot practicably attain by its attainment date, such a demonstration is not necessary to trigger action by the EPA to reclassify a Moderate area to Serious. The statute does not prohibit the EPA from using the weight of available evidence, including information available in the public record of a state, to make such a determination, even in the absence of a complete attainment plan submission. Thus, the EPA expressed in the General Preamble that:
The EPA emphasizes that states with an area designated as nonattainment for the PM
The EPA considers this the correct interpretation of the statutory requirements and proposes to apply this longstanding interpretation of section 188(b)(1) to nonattainment areas for the PM
In addition to the EPA's discretionary authority to reclassify a Moderate area to Serious under certain circumstances, the CAA also directs the EPA to do so under other circumstances. The alternative circumstances under which the EPA will reclassify an area from Moderate to Serious are if that area fails to attain the relevant NAAQS by the applicable Moderate area attainment date, including any extension of that date under section 188(d) for which the area qualifies. Under such circumstances, the EPA has a mandatory duty to identify any area that fails to attain the PM
An alternative approach for setting the date of reclassification for an area reclassified to Serious under the EPA's mandatory authority could be to make it the same date as the missed attainment date for the area. Applying this approach in the example above would yield an earlier date of reclassification of December 31, 2021, and an earlier Serious area attainment plan due date of June 30, 2023.
Although section 188(b)(2) does not explicitly address this issue, the EPA believes that its proposed approach is a reasonable interpretation of statutory ambiguity in section 188(b)(2) and preferable over the alternative approach for two reasons. First, the statute at section 189(b)(2) gives a state 18 months from the date of reclassification of an area to submit for the EPA's approval an attainment demonstration with air quality modeling and provisions to assure timely implementation of BACM and BACT on sources in the nonattainment area. The EPA believes that it is reasonable for a state with a Serious PM
The EPA seeks comment on its proposed approach of basing the date of reclassification for an area reclassified under the agency's mandatory duty in section 188(b)(2) on the effective date for the
Sections 189(b) and (c) of the CAA include the following requirements for Serious area attainment plan submissions: (i) An attainment demonstration (section 189(b)(1)(A)); (ii) provisions for the implementation of best available control measures (BACM) no later than 4 years after reclassification of the area to Serious (section 189(b)(1)(B)); (iii) quantitative milestones that will be used to evaluate compliance with the requirement to
Additionally, section 189(b)(1) requires that “in addition” to the attainment plan requirements specific to Serious areas, states must also meet all Moderate area attainment plan requirements. The EPA interprets the statutory language of section 189(b)(1) to require states with areas that are reclassified to Serious to meet Moderate area attainment plan requirements, including any areas that the EPA reclassifies through rulemaking under its discretionary authority, even if that occurs before the area has met all of its Moderate area attainment plan requirements.
The remainder of this section presents the EPA's proposed regulatory approaches to implement the requirements for attainment plan submissions for Serious areas.
The timing of Serious area attainment plan elements is dictated by two provisions of the CAA: Section 189(b)(2) for certain subpart 4 elements and section 172(b) for subpart 1 elements not superseded by subpart 4 requirements. Section 189(b)(2) addresses the due dates for Serious area attainment demonstrations due under section 189(b)(1)(A) and provisions for BACM and BACT implementation under section 189(b)(1)(B). Specifically, section 189(b)(2) stipulates two alternative schedules for states to submit Serious area attainment demonstrations, depending upon the statutory authority invoked by the EPA to reclassify the area from Moderate to Serious. For an area reclassified to Serious by operation of law under section 188(b)(2) upon a determination by the EPA that the area failed to attain the relevant NAAQS by the applicable Moderate area attainment date, a state must submit a new attainment demonstration for the area no later than 18 months after reclassification. For an area reclassified to Serious pursuant to the agency's discretionary authority provided under section 188(b)(1), a state must submit a new attainment demonstration no later than 4 years after reclassification of the area.
In contrast, section 172(b) provides the EPA discretion to set a due date for subpart 1 attainment plan elements that is no later than 3 years after designation of the area. In the Addendum, the EPA interpreted the date of reclassification of an area to Serious to be analogous to the date of designation of the area to nonattainment generally.
As with Moderate area attainment plans consisting of both subpart 1 and 4 elements, the EPA presumes that simultaneous development and submission of most, if not all, of the Serious area attainment plan elements will be most effective, both for the state in developing the plan and for the EPA in reviewing the state's submission, given the interplay between all plan elements in the formation of a successful control strategy for the area. Just as importantly, a complete attainment plan submission facilitates the general public's review of the entire control strategy adopted by the state. Therefore where there is ambiguity in the statutory provisions, the EPA is proposing one or more approaches to schedule submission of the various elements of Serious area attainment plans in a way that will facilitate better development and evaluation of such attainment plan submissions. The EPA's proposed options for due dates for specific elements of a Serious area attainment plan are described below.
If the EPA reclassifies a Moderate area to Serious because of a failure to attain the relevant NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, section 189(b)(2) requires that the state must submit both the attainment demonstration for the area and provisions to ensure timely BACM and BACT implementation to the EPA within 18 months after reclassification. Because an up-to-date base year emissions inventory, required under section 172(c)(3), will serve as the foundation of a state's BACM and BACT determination, and additional control measures (beyond BACM and BACT) that are necessary for expeditious attainment of the PM
The EPA also proposes and seeks comment on two possible due dates for the remaining Serious area attainment plan elements for areas that failed to attain the NAAQS by the applicable Moderate area attainment date. Those plan elements are provisions for RFP, quantitative milestones and contingency measures. The first proposed due date for these remaining Serious area attainment plan elements would be no later than 18 months after reclassification of the area, consistent with the due date for the plan elements already described above. As noted above, the EPA maintains that requiring states to submit all elements of an attainment plan by the same date is reasonable because it allows for a complete review of the state submission by the EPA, regulated entities, and the general public, and it also may prove most efficient for states.
The alternate proposed due date for the remaining elements would be 3 years following reclassification to
If the EPA determines that a Moderate area cannot practicably attain the relevant NAAQS by the applicable attainment date and reclassifies the area to Serious pursuant to its discretionary authority under section 188(b)(1), section 189(b)(2) requires the state to submit provisions to ensure timely implementation of BACM and BACT to the EPA within 18 months after reclassification. As stated earlier, because an up-to-date emissions inventory serves as the foundation for a state's BACM and BACT determination and pursuant to the authority granted to the EPA under section 172(b), the EPA proposes that the state must meet the emissions inventory requirement under section 172(c)(3) also within 18 months after reclassification of the area by submission of an up-to-date emissions inventory.
With respect to the attainment demonstration requirement for Serious areas reclassified pursuant to section 188(b)(1), section 189(b)(2) allows the state up to 4 years after reclassification to submit a new attainment demonstration for an area reclassified to Serious because it cannot practicably attain the PM
However, the EPA is also proposing an alternative approach for determining the control strategy for a Serious area, under which BACM and BACT and additional feasible measures would be identified in conjunction with the attainment demonstration for the area (
With respect to other elements of a Serious area attainment plan, under the EPA's prior interpretation as described in the Addendum, the EPA had suggested that states could submit contingency measures no later than 3 years after reclassification of an area to Serious because of the language of section 172(b).
The EPA believes that this proposed due date for certain attainment plan elements required under subparts 1 and 4 would be most appropriate if finalized in conjunction with proposed Option 2 for BACM and BACT, which would require the state to submit the attainment demonstration for the area within 18 months after reclassification of the area to Serious. However, in the event the EPA finalizes proposed Option 1 for determining BACM and BACT for a Serious nonattainment area independent of the attainment demonstration for the area, the attainment demonstration for the area would be due no later than 4 years after the date of reclassification of the area to Serious. Given the integral role that the attainment demonstration plays in helping to identify additional feasible measures (beyond BACM and BACT) that an area may need to attain the relevant standard expeditiously (and which are required under section 172(c)(6)), to calculate emissions reductions needed on an annual basis to demonstrate RFP, and to calculate the emissions reductions that contingency measures need to achieve and identify what controls could constitute such measures, the EPA is proposing and seeking comment on an alternative submittal deadline for provisions for RFP and quantitative milestones, additional control measures needed for expeditious attainment, and contingency measures that would align their due date with the statutory Serious area attainment demonstration due date, no later than 4 years from the date of reclassification.
As with PM
As noted earlier in this preamble, states must use the best available, current emissions inventory information for attainment plan development, because complete, high quality emissions inventory data are essential for the development of an effective control strategy. To assist states in preparing complete, high quality inventories, the EPA provides guidance for developing emissions inventories in its SIP Emissions Inventory Guidance, available at
As with Moderate PM
Like Moderate areas, there are three key facets of the EPA's proposed emissions inventory requirements, as laid out below: (i) The types of inventories required; (ii) the content of these inventories; and, (iii) the timing of submittal of these inventories. The three facets are addressed in the following paragraphs.
First, the EPA proposes that the same two types of inventories required for Moderate areas are also required for Serious areas. While these inventories are the same types and names of inventories as for Moderate areas, they must be created specifically for Serious area attainment plans in accordance with the applicable Serious area requirements. The first type of inventory, the “base year inventory for the nonattainment area,” is expressly required by section 172(c)(3). The second type of inventory the EPA is proposing to require under section 301(a)(1) is necessary to implement the attainment demonstration requirement of section 189(a)(1)(B). This second inventory is called the “attainment projected inventory for the nonattainment area.”
Second, the EPA proposes that the content of the inventories will follow the content requirements for Moderate area inventories, with one exception needed to meet the requirements of section 189(b)(3). For Serious areas, section 189(b)(3) defines a separate emissions threshold for major sources in Serious nonattainment areas (70 tpy potential to emit of PM
Third, Section VI.A of this preamble describes the EPA's proposal to require that a state submit the base year inventory for a Serious nonattainment area at the same time that it submits provisions to implement BACM and BACT on sources in the area (due no later than 18 months from reclassification of the area pursuant to section 189(b)(2)) as the base year inventory serves as the starting point for conducting a BACM and BACT determination. On the other hand, because the attainment projected inventory is more closely related to the Serious area attainment demonstration, the EPA believes that a state should be required to submit its attainment projected inventory with the attainment demonstration for a given Serious area in order to allow effective evaluation of the attainment plan as a whole. Consequently, the EPA is proposing to establish the regulatory requirement that attainment projected emissions inventories be submitted at the same time as the Serious area attainment demonstration, which would mean no later than 18 months after reclassification for areas reclassified after failing to attain the NAAQS by the applicable Moderate area attainment date, or no later than 4 years after reclassification for areas reclassified by the EPA because the area cannot practicably attain the NAAQS by the statutory attainment date if the EPA finalizes proposed Option 1 for determining BACM and BACT for area.
The EPA seeks comment on these proposed requirements and due dates for emissions inventories for Serious area attainment plans.
Section III of this preamble includes a detailed discussion about how states should address PM
In general terms, the three options can be summarized as follows:
• Option 1: Two independent analyses: (a) An attainment planning analysis demonstrating that control measures for a particular precursor are not needed for expeditious attainment, meaning that the precursor can be excluded from measures needed to attain as expeditiously as practicable for all types of sources; and, (b) a section 189(e) technical demonstration showing that major stationary sources of a particular precursor do not contribute significantly to levels that exceed the PM
• Option 2: Single analysis demonstrating that all emissions of a particular precursor from within the area do not significantly contribute to PM
• Option 3: An attainment planning analysis demonstrating that control measures for all types of sources of a particular precursor are not needed for expeditious attainment also would be deemed to meet the section 189(e) technical demonstration requirement, meaning that the state would not need to regulate emissions of the particular precursor from major stationary sources under the NNSR permitting program or other control requirements for major stationary sources. As under proposed precursor Option 1, for an area reclassified to Serious, the state would once again need to evaluate potential control measures for all sources of direct PM
The EPA will finalize its approach to PM
As noted in Section IV.D of this preamble, the statutory attainment planning requirements of subparts 1 and 4 were established to ensure that states meet the following goals of the CAA: (i) Implement measures that provide for attainment of the PM
The following sections describe the EPA's proposed approach for a state to follow in order to identify and select the complete suite of measures needed for an approvable attainment plan submission for a Serious PM
a.
Section 189(b)(1)(B) refers only to BACM, but the EPA has long interpreted this term to include BACT, just as the analogous term for RACM includes RACT for Moderate areas. The legislative history for the 1990 Amendments to the CAA supports this interpretation, as the EPA has explained in past guidance.
Longstanding guidance in the General Preamble and Addendum, together with past practice associated with implementing the PM
Congress first defined BACT in CAA section 169(3) for the PSD permitting program as: “an emission limitation based on the maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant . . . which the permitting authority, on a case-by-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs, determines is achievable for such facility through application of production processes and available methods, systems, and techniques . . .”
In the Addendum, the EPA provided guidance concerning the requirements for BACM and BACT for Serious area attainment plan requirements for the PM
The EPA has described BACM as a generally independent requirement, to be determined without regard to the specific attainment analysis (
In addition, the EPA has historically provided an exemption from BACM and BACT for source categories that contribute only
A discussion of the EPA's existing process and criteria for determining BACM and BACT for Serious PM
In accordance with the PM
Under the Addendum, the test for determining technological feasibility could differ depending on the type of source category evaluated. For area sources, the EPA's guidance suggested that technological feasibility depended on the ability to alter the characteristics that affect emissions from the sources, such as the size or extent of the area sources and operation procedures. The EPA's guidance suggested that for specific point sources, technological feasibility should consider factors such as layout of the plant, space available to make changes in the plant, energy requirements, operating procedures, and materials used, among others.
The EPA believes that the difference between RACM and BACM primarily lies in the extent of the actual emissions reductions achieved through the application of a given suite of candidate measures. For example, a state may have deemed a candidate RACM or RACT measure economically infeasible because its cost effectiveness (dollar per ton of pollutant reduced) was high relative to other measures, but the same measure could qualify as BACM if, for the increased cost, it would ultimately provide substantial PM
While the proposed approaches and criteria for identifying appropriate control measures for a Serious area are necessarily different than for a Moderate area, it is important to note two similarities: first, that the EPA interprets the requirement under section 172(c)(6) for a state to adopt “other measures” needed for attainment to apply to sources located inside and outside of any PM
Taking these two statutory provisions together, the EPA proposes that the other measures required under section 172(c)(6) must include “additional feasible measures,” which would be those measures and technologies that otherwise meet the criteria for BACM and BACT but that can only be implemented in whole or in part beginning 4 years after reclassification of an area, but no later than the statutory attainment date for the area.
These “additional feasible measures” would be analogous to the “additional reasonable measures” in the proposed RACM and RACT analysis process, which are technologically and economically feasible measures that cannot qualify as RACM or RACT because they cannot be implemented within 4 years of designation of a Moderate nonattainment area. Under either of the two proposed approaches for determining BACM and BACT for sources in a Serious nonattainment area descrfibed later in this section, a state would identify additional feasible measures as part of the BACM and BACT determination process, just as additional reasonable measures would be identified as part of the state's RACM and RACT determination process.
The EPA recognizes that only a nonattainment area that is reclassified under the agency's discretionary authority might have sufficient time between the required date for implementing BACM and BACT and the statutory Serious area attainment date to implement additional measures beyond BACM and BACT. BACM and BACT must be implemented no later than 4 years after reclassification of the area; areas reclassified to Serious because they cannot practicably attain the relevant NAAQS by the applicable attainment date could potentially have significantly more than 4 years between the date of reclassification and the statutory Serious area attainment date, during which time the area could continue to implement additional measures to bring the area into attainment. By way of illustration, for areas designated in the first round of designations for the 2012 PM
b.
The EPA's second proposed approach would require states to identify BACM and BACT and additional feasible measures simply within the context of what is necessary to bring an area into attainment as expeditiously as practicable. In other words, the second proposed option would take a different approach to determining Serious area control measures from the approach included in prior EPA guidance, in that it would allow states not to impose specific measures that would otherwise be BACM or BACT (or additional feasible measures) in the area, if those measures would not be necessary to bring the area into attainment with the relevant NAAQS by the statutory attainment date, and the collective emissions reductions from such measures would not be sufficient to advance the attainment date by at least 1 year in the area. A discussion of the proposed options follows.
i.
Under the EPA's first proposed approach, a state would be required to follow a multi-step process similar to the existing BACM process for PM
This option could be beneficial for some states that may already exclude
In addition to identifying existing control measures for sources in a Serious PM
Specific to potential control measures for mobile source emissions, the EPA's past guidance has indicated that where mobile sources contribute significantly to PM
(1) Stationary sources. As described under the technological feasibility criteria for the control measures analysis for Moderate area attainment plans in Section IV.D, the EPA's prior guidance on factors to consider for judging whether a particular control technology is technologically feasible should include a source's processes and operating procedures, raw materials, physical plant layout and potential environmental impacts such as increased water pollution, waste disposal and energy requirements. For example, the EPA recognizes that the process, operating procedures and raw materials used by a source can affect the feasibility of implementing process changes that reduce emissions and can also affect the selection of add-on emission control equipment. The feasibility of modifying processes or applying control equipment also can be influenced by the physical layout of the particular plant, if the physical space available in which to implement such changes limits the choices.
(2) Area and mobile sources. With respect to determining whether a given control measure might not be technologically feasible as BACM for an area or mobile source, the EPA proposes that a state may consider factors in conducting its analysis that are similar to factors the state may have considered during the RACM and RACT determination process, such as the social acceptability of the measure, and local circumstances, such as the condition and extent of needed infrastructure, population size or workforce type and habits, which may prohibit certain potential control measures from being implementable. However, in the instance where a given control measure has been applied in another NAAQS nonattainment area (for PM
The EPA seeks comment on the factors described above for states to consider when evaluating the technological feasibility of a control measure or technology for BACM and BACT.
Indeed, consistent with prior guidance on evaluating costs of a potential BACM or BACT control, the EPA maintains that while the economic feasibility of a control measure is as important as its technological feasibility under the RACM and RACT determination process, economic feasibility is a less significant factor in the BACM and BACT determination process. In other words, a state must apply a higher standard for eliminating a technologically feasible control measure from further consideration as BACM due to cost alone.
In the Addendum, the EPA stated that “for PM
In addition, the EPA seeks to clarify that a state may not automatically eliminate a particular control measure merely because other sources have not implemented the measure. In other words, a state must continue to consider technologically feasible measures that have not been implemented by similar sources but that can nonetheless effectively reduce emissions from the source category in question at a cost that is not wholly cost prohibitive.
As with the EPA's proposed approach for evaluating economic feasibility of potential reasonable measures for Moderate area attainment plans, the EPA proposes that for each technologically feasible control measure or technology, a state must evaluate the economic feasibility of the measure or control through consideration of the capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, and cost effectiveness (
1. Fixed and variable production costs ($/unit);
2. Product supply and demand elasticity;
3. Product prices (cost absorption vs. cost pass-through);
4. Expected costs incurred by competitors;
5. Company profits
6. Employment costs;
7. Other costs (
The EPA seeks comment on the factors described above for states to consider when determining whether a control measure or technology is economically feasible as BACM or BACT.
The EPA proposes that a state must identify those technologically and economically feasible control measures and technologies that it can implement fully or partially within 4 years of reclassification of its Serious PM
ii.
Under the EPA's second proposed approach for determining which measures must be part of the control strategy for a Serious PM
The EPA emphasizes that proposed Option 2 for determining BACM and BACT and additional feasible measures depends on the state submitting its attainment demonstration earlier than may otherwise be required under the statute so that it can be contemporaneous with the submission of BACM and BACT measures, due 18 months after the date of reclassification of a PM
Given all of the above, the EPA is proposing and seeking comment on a second approach for determining BACM and BACT and additional feasible measures for a Serious PM
During this step in the process, the state would be required to identify two groups of measures. The first group of measures would be potential BACM and BACT; that is, “best”-level, feasible measures that the state could implement in whole or in part within 4 years of reclassification. The second group of measures would be additional feasible measures, defined as “best”-level, feasible measures that a state could implement in whole or in part on sources in the area sometime after the fourth year following reclassification
The EPA recognizes that identifying the measures that would not collectively advance the attainment date for a Serious area by at least 1 year will likely be an iterative process that requires additional modeling. As with modeling for Moderate area attainment demonstrations, the EPA believes that such extra effort is reasonable for a state seeking to reject certain potential BACM or BACT or additional feasible measures from implementation in a given Serious nonattainment area.
One notable point of discussion in the Addendum indicates that short-term BACM measures are not preferred by the EPA unless such a measure is the only way to implement BACM within 4 years.
The EPA acknowledges that this second proposed approach for determining BACM and BACT and additional feasible measures for a Serious area, which would authorize states to link the attainment control strategy to the attainment needs for an area, is different from the approach the agency has historically applied to BACM determinations for PM
By defining a process for determining BACM and BACT and additional feasible measures in a way that is similar to the process for determining RACM and RACT and additional reasonable measures for the same area, the EPA believes that a state with a Serious PM
The EPA seeks comment on all aspects of both proposed approaches and criteria for determining BACM and BACT and additional feasible measures for a Serious nonattainment area. The agency may finalize either of the proposed approaches or various elements of each after analyzing submitted comments.
To ensure that attainment plan submissions contain the necessary supporting information for EPA review and approval of the state's selected BACM and BACT and additional feasible measures as applicable, the EPA proposes to require under the authority of section 301(a) that a state must submit the following information as part of its Serious area attainment plan submission:
• A list of all emissions source categories, sources and activities in the nonattainment area that emit direct PM
• For each source category, source or activity in the nonattainment area, an inventory of direct PM
• For each source category, source or activity in the nonattainment area, a comprehensive list of potential control measures considered by the state for the nonattainment area;
• For each potential control measure considered by the state but eliminated from further consideration due to a determination by the state that the control measure or technology was not technologically feasible, a narrative explanation and quantitative or qualitative supporting documentation to justify the state's conclusion;
• For each technologically feasible emission control measure or technology, the state must provide the following information relevant to economic feasibility: (i) The control efficiency by pollutant; (ii) the possible emission reductions by pollutant; (iii) the estimated cost per ton of pollutant reduced; and, (iv) a determination of whether the measure is economically feasible, with narrative explanation and quantitative supporting documentation to justify the state's conclusion;
• For each technologically and economically feasible emission control measure or technology, the date by which the technology or measure could be implemented.
As with a Moderate area attainment plan submission, the EPA recognizes that the base year emissions inventory for the area that the state submits in conjunction with its Serious area attainment plan will likely contain the information proposed to be required under the first two items in this list. However, the EPA believes that it is incumbent on the state to ensure that the information needed for the EPA to evaluate the state's BACM and BACT and additional feasible measures analysis is presented as part of that analysis and in a format that provides transparency, consistency and the ability for another party to evaluate the state's analysis effectively and to duplicate the state's results. For this reason, the EPA is proposing to require the state to include the base year emissions inventory information with the BACM and BACT submittal and as one element of the state's attainment plan due 18 months after reclassification of the area to Serious.
As with control measures identified as part of a Moderate area's attainment control strategy, after a state has identified its BACM and BACT and additional feasible measures for a particular nonattainment area, it must implement those measures through a legally enforceable mechanism to be included in the SIP. As with Moderate area control measures, the EPA is proposing that in order for the agency to be able to approve any Serious area control measure and approve it as part of the SIP, the state will have to provide information to meet the following four criteria.
First, the base year emissions from the source or group of sources to which the control measure applies and the future year projected emissions from those sources once controlled must be quantifiable so that the projected emissions reductions from the sources can be attributed to the specific measures being implemented. Once again, it is important that the emissions from the source category in question are accurately represented in the base year inventory so that emissions reductions are properly calculated. In particular, it is especially important to ensure that both the filterable and condensable components of PM
Second, the control measures must be enforceable, meaning that they must specify clear, unambiguous and measurable requirements. The measurable requirements for larger emitting facilities must include periodic source testing to establish the capability of such facilities to achieve the required emission level. Additionally, to verify the continued performance of the control measure, specific emissions monitoring programs appropriate for the type of control measure employed and the level of emissions must be included to verify the continued performance of the control measure. The control measures and monitoring program must also have been adopted according to proper legal procedures.
Third, the results of application of the control measures must be replicable. This means that where a rule contains procedures for interpreting, changing or determining compliance with the rule, the procedures are sufficiently specific and objective so that two independent entities applying the procedures would obtain the same result.
Fourth, the control measures must be accountable. For example, source-specific emission limits must be permanent and must reflect the assumptions used in the attainment plan for the area, including the modeling conducted in conjunction with the attainment demonstration. The attainment plan must establish requirements to track emissions changes at sources and provide for corrective action if emissions reductions are not achieved according to the plan.
The EPA seeks comment on these criteria for approval of any control measures adopted by a state for a Serious area to assure that such measures are legally enforceable.
The EPA believes that BACT or lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) provisions for new sources (as distinct from BACT for existing sources), or best available retrofit technology (BART) for existing sources, could qualify as BACM or BACT for purposes of meeting the Serious area attainment plan requirements. However, the EPA does not believe it is appropriate for a state to assume that just because a certain control technology was determined to meet BACT, LAER, or BART criteria for a new source, such a control will also automatically meet the criteria for BACM or BACT or additional feasible measures for attainment planning purposes because the regulated pollutant or source applicability may differ and the analyses may be conducted many years apart. Thus, a state may not simply rely on prior BACT, LAER or BART analyses for the purposes of showing that a source has also met BACT for the relevant PM
States that share a multi-state Serious PM
The EPA strongly urges states to consider the environmental justice aspect of any control measures they have identified as BACM and BACT or additional feasible measures. Because the criteria for determining BACM and BACT will lead in most cases to the selection of an overall more stringent control strategy in a Serious area than what RACM and RACT could provide, an appropriate control strategy for a Serious nonattainment area will likely implicitly include the best measures for ensuring that overburdened populations are appropriately protected. Nonetheless, the EPA encourages states when possible to select BACM and BACT measures that will result in the least possible burden and greatest degree of health protection for overburdened populations in the nonattainment area.
Section IV.E. describes the EPA's proposed attainment demonstration and modeling requirements for Moderate area plans, and the EPA is proposing that the same general requirements should apply to Serious area attainment demonstrations. However, Serious area plans have additional statutory requirements, which the EPA proposes to address as described below.
Section 189(b) generally requires a state with a designated Serious nonattainment area to submit an attainment plan for such area. As discussed earlier, section 189(b)(1)(A) more specifically requires the state to submit an attainment demonstration including air quality modeling to establish either: (i) That the area will attain the relevant NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, or (ii) if the state is seeking an extension of the attainment date, that it is impracticable for the area to attain the relevant NAAQS by the statutory Serious area attainment date. For Serious nonattainment areas, the attainment date is as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the end of the tenth calendar year after designation as nonattainment. An attainment demonstration that shows that it is impracticable for the area to attain within this timeframe must also provide for attainment of the NAAQS by the most expeditious alternative date practicable, but no later than 5 years after the maximum statutory Serious area attainment date (based on the criteria specified in section 188(e)).
Attainment demonstrations are due 18 months after reclassification if the EPA reclassifies the area to Serious after failure of the area to attain the applicable Moderate area deadline. Alternatively, section 189(b)(2) requires states with designated Serious nonattainment areas to submit attainment demonstrations no later than 4 years after reclassification of the area to Serious if the reclassification occurs before the Moderate area attainment deadline. However, the EPA is proposing an approach for determining an appropriate attainment plan control strategy for a Serious PM
As described in Section IV.E of this preamble, an attainment demonstration is a plan that demonstrates how a state will attain the PM
A state with a Serious nonattainment area can also submit an impracticability demonstration (under section 189(b)(1)(A)(ii)) as part of seeking an extension of the attainment date under section 188(e). The impracticability demonstration for a Serious area would be similar to an impracticability demonstration for Moderate areas because it must include air quality modeling which shows that the area will not be able to attain the PM
States are required to submit air quality modeling in support of an attainment demonstration for a Serious PM
Other than the timing of plan submissions and additional required elements of a Serious area plan (such as BACM and BACT), the relevant air quality modeling procedures and guidance for Moderate and Serious area plans are the same.
Under section 189(a)(1)(B), a state is required to submit as part of an area's Moderate area attainment plan a demonstration that the area either will attain or cannot practicably attain the NAAQS by the statutory Moderate area attainment date. Regardless of whether the state submits an attainment demonstration or an impracticability demonstration for a Moderate area, if such area is reclassified to Serious prior to or after failing to attain the applicable NAAQS, the state is required under section 189(b)(1)(A) to submit a new attainment demonstration as part of an area's Serious area attainment plan. The separate statutory requirements for Moderate and Serious nonattainment areas anticipate two separate attainment plan submissions, and the EPA's existing guidance in the General Preamble and Addendum further support this expectation. While the state would be required to submit a separate Serious area attainment plan, the EPA anticipates that certain control strategies may build upon those previously adopted and implemented as part of the Moderate area plan. For example, it could be the case that an area dominated by woodsmoke emissions could not attain the standard by the statutory Moderate area attainment date because all necessary woodstove change-outs could not occur in that timeframe, but additional woodstove change-outs could occur by the statutory Serious area attainment date.
A state performing a modeling analysis for an attainment demonstration or a Serious area impracticability analysis must select a future year for the analysis. For an attainment demonstration, a state should select the future modeling year such that all emissions control measures relied on for attainment will have been implemented by the beginning of that year. To demonstrate attainment, the modeling results for the nonattainment area must predict that emissions reductions implemented by the beginning of the last calendar year preceding the attainment date will result in PM
While states should choose the future modeling year based on a number of factors, the EPA recommends the last year of the statutory attainment date as a starting point for modeling for two reasons. First, a state with a Serious area for which it submits an attainment date extension request under section 188(e) must show that the area cannot practicably attain the NAAQS by the end of the tenth calendar year following designation of the area. Therefore, the appropriate future modeling year for making such a demonstration would be the tenth year after designations. Even if a state does not submit (or does not intend to submit) a Serious area attainment date extension request, modeling the tenth year is a logical starting point to determine if attainment by year 10 is likely. If attainment-level concentrations of PM
Second, even though attainment of any PM
Because an area must attain “as expeditiously as practicable,” additional considerations are necessary before an attainment date can be established. For purposes of determining the attainment date that is as expeditious as practicable, the state must conduct future year modeling which takes into account growth and known controls (including any controls that were previously determined to be RACM and RACT for the area). For example, for an area designated nonattainment for the 2012 PM
As with Moderate area attainment demonstrations, the EPA believes that it is not necessary or reasonable to require states to model each and every year to determine the appropriate attainment date for a Serious PM
As with Moderate areas, the transportation conformity rule requires that Serious area attainment plans establish motor vehicle emissions budgets for the area's attainment year. Therefore, once a Serious area's attainment date has been established, the state is required to establish motor vehicle emissions budgets for direct PM
As with Moderate area attainment plans, Serious PM
As with a Moderate area attainment plan, the EPA is generally proposing that a state must submit an RFP plan as part of any attainment plan submission for a Serious nonattainment area in order to satisfy the statutory requirements for RFP. The plan must include a schedule and an analysis that collectively demonstrate when and through what control measures emissions from sources in the nonattainment area will decline from the applicable baseline year to the projected attainment year. The EPA is proposing that the applicable baseline year must be the same year as that represented by the latest base year inventory for the Serious area. The projected attainment year may be up to the end of the tenth year following designation of the area for a Serious area
The EPA seeks comment on all aspects of the agency's proposal for meeting the statutory RFP requirements as they apply to Serious nonattainment areas. Furthermore, the EPA seeks comment on the proposed options described in Section IV.F of this preamble regarding how to prepare an RFP plan, geographic coverage of emission sources for RFP, and RFP requirements for multi-state nonattainment areas, which would also apply to Serious area attainment plans.
The attainment plan for any Serious nonattainment area must include quantitative milestones pursuant to section 189(c). These quantitative milestones would be in addition to those identified in the area's Moderate area attainment plan, and would need to continue to be achieved every 3 years until the area attains the NAAQS. Specifically, the Serious area plan for an area that can demonstrate attainment by the statutory Serious area attainment date would have to contain quantitative milestones to be achieved by 7.5 years from the area's date of designation as nonattainment. This date would be 3 years after the first quantitative milestones for the area, to be met 4.5 years from designation of the area and 3 years after the Moderate area attainment plan was due to the EPA. The EPA also proposes and seeks comment on a requirement that a Serious area plan for an area that can demonstrate attainment by the statutory Serious area attainment date must also include quantitative milestones to be reached 10.5 years from designation, to help assess the state's progress toward attaining the PM
The Addendum included guidance that recommended milestones “should be addressed by quantifying and comparing the annual incremental emission reductions which result from implementation of BACM and BACT (required within 4 years after the area is reclassified as serious) and from additional measures included in the final serious area SIP to those reductions which were identified in the SIP as quantitative milestones necessary to achieve the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.”
The EPA continues to agree with the fundamental concept conveyed in the existing guidance, but believes that it is impractical to expect that a state will always be able to quantify and compare real and projected emissions reductions, and submit a report to the EPA within 90 days of a given milestone, as required under section 189(c)(2). Therefore, the EPA proposes that the general proposed approach to selecting quantitative milestones, described in Section IV.G, should apply to any attainment plan for a PM
In addition to this general proposed approach for selecting quantitative milestones and similar to an option proposed for Moderate area attainment plans, the EPA proposes to require that, at a minimum, states must include in all attainment plans for Serious PM
The EPA seeks comment on these proposed options for interpreting the statutory quantitative milestone requirements for Serious areas.
As noted in Section IV.G of this preamble, all PM
The statutory contingency measure requirement at section 172(c)(9) is not superseded or subsumed by any requirement under subpart 4, nor does it apply only to Moderate area attainment plans. Thus, contingency measures are required for Serious PM
1. Contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures that are ready to be implemented quickly upon a determination by the Administrator of the nonattainment area's failure to meet RFP or failure to meet the standard by its attainment date.
2. The SIP must contain trigger mechanisms for the contingency measures, specify a schedule for implementation, and indicate that the measures will be implemented without significant further action by the state or by the EPA.
3. Contingency measures must consist of control measures that are not otherwise included in the control strategy for the SIP, or must require further implementation of partial measures already included in the SIP as BACM or BACT, additional feasible measures, or MSM.
4. Contingency measures must provide for emissions reductions equivalent to 1 year's share of reductions needed to demonstrate attainment (
The EPA further proposes that a state may elect to rely on contingency measures that achieve emissions reductions on sources located outside the nonattainment area, but within the state, as well as from within the nonattainment area, provided that the measures on sources outside the designated nonattainment area are demonstrated to produce the appropriate air quality impact within the nonattainment area.
As with contingency measures for Moderate nonattainment areas, the EPA believes it appropriate that a state might rely on additional reductions in the years following a failure to meet RFP requirements or a failure to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date from federal or local measures already scheduled for implementation as part or all of their contingency measures. The EPA could potentially consider such measures as meeting the contingency measure requirement as long as they produce emissions reductions in excess of those required to meet other statutory provisions, such as to meet BACM and BACT requirements, and they can be relied on to achieve a sufficient portion of the actual emissions reductions necessary to reduce emissions in the area while the state develops a new plan to bring the area into attainment.
The Addendum provided guidance related specifically to the selection and implementation of contingency measures for Serious nonattainment areas. First, the EPA guidance indicated that “for those moderate areas reclassified as serious, if all or part of the moderate area plan contingency measures become part of the required serious area control measures (
With regard to the timing for implementing contingency measures, the EPA reiterates that the purpose of contingency measures is to ensure that corrective measures are put in place automatically at the time that the EPA makes a determination that an area has failed to meet RFP or failed to meet the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. For any nonattainment area, the EPA is required to determine within 90 days after receiving a state's RFP demonstration, and within 6 months after the attainment date for an area, whether the state has met their statutory obligations for demonstrating RFP or attaining the standard, as appropriate. As with Moderate areas, the EPA believes that contingency measures should become effective for Serious areas within 60 days of the EPA making its determination that the area failed to meet RFP or attain the NAAQS and proposes to require this for purposes of PM
Finally, while section 172(b) gives discretion to the Administrator to establish a deadline for submitting contingency measures up to 3 years from designation of the area, it does not explicitly address the appropriate submittal date for contingency measures for areas reclassified to Serious. In the Addendum, the EPA indicated that “states must submit contingency measures for serious areas or otherwise demonstrate that adequate measures are in place within 3 years of reclassification.”
In addition, as described in Section VI.A, the EPA proposes an alternative submission deadline for Serious area contingency measures that would align the contingency measure due date with the Serious area attainment demonstration due date. If an area is reclassified under the EPA's discretionary authority, the Serious area
As explained earlier, section 188 establishes the attainment dates for both Moderate and Serious areas. For a Serious area, section 188(c)(2) provides that “the attainment date shall be as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the end of the tenth calendar year beginning after the area's designation as nonattainment.”
The process for a state to determine the most expeditious attainment date practicable for a Serious area will depend upon the final approach selected for determining BACM and BACT for the area. Therefore the EPA is proposing two approaches for determining the appropriate attainment date for a Serious area. Under the first approach, which would correspond to the agency's proposed Option 1 for determining BACM and BACT—independent of the attainment demonstration for the area—the state would simply include the control measures determined to be BACM and BACT for the area in its air quality modeling, and would report the results of the modeling, including the earliest projected attainment date.
Under the second proposed approach, which would correspond to the EPA's proposed Option 2 for determining BACM and BACT—tied to the attainment needs of the particular nonattainment area—the state would be required to follow a two-step process for determining the appropriate attainment date for the area. First, the state would be required to demonstrate through air quality modeling that the area can attain the relevant NAAQS by the latest statutory attainment date and determine which control measures and technologies are needed for the area to attain by that date. Second, the state would be required to determine whether implementing any remaining BACM or BACT controls (
As with Moderate area attainment dates, when the EPA takes action to approve the different elements of the attainment plan for the Serious area, one of the elements that the agency will take action on will be the state's proposed attainment date for the area. If the EPA approves an attainment date for the area that is earlier than the latest date allowed by statute, then the applicable attainment date for the area will be the approved date. If the state demonstrates that the Serious area cannot practicably attain the NAAQS by the end of the tenth calendar year following designation, the state may request a Serious area attainment date extension as long as certain conditions are met, as described next in Section VI.J.
As with Moderate areas, the EPA may grant an extension of the attainment date for a Serious PM
In the Addendum, the EPA generally described the statutory requirements listed above and expressed an intent to issue guidance on applying for an extension of the Serious area attainment date, if appropriate. While ultimately the EPA did not deem it necessary to issue such guidance, the EPA has interpreted these statutory requirements through actual exercise of its authority under section 188(e) in past rulemakings for specific PM
However, for a Serious area attainment date extension request being submitted sometime after submission of an “original” Serious area attainment plan that contained an attainment demonstration meeting the requirements of section 189(b)(1)(A)(i), the EPA proposes to read section 188(e) not to require the area to have a fully approved attainment plan that meets the CAA's requirements for Serious areas, but to have a fully approved Moderate area attainment plan. The rationale for this distinction is due to the timing of the Serious area attainment date extension request under these circumstances, which is discussed in greater detail later in this section. The EPA believes that this proposed interpretation of this criterion would apply whether the area was reclassified to Serious under the EPA's discretionary authority (section 188(b)(1)) or by operation of law upon failing to attain by the Moderate area attainment date (section 188(b)(2)).
The EPA also seeks comment on an alternative interpretation of the implementation plan compliance criterion that would require a state to have a Moderate area attainment plan fully approved by the EPA, not just fully implemented by the state, at the time of the Serious area attainment date extension request, regardless of when such a request is submitted to the EPA. The EPA believes that one may reasonably argue that a state seeking an extension of the Serious area attainment date should have fully implemented all elements of an approved Moderate area attainment plan. The EPA believes that while such a condition may be reasonable, generally speaking, there may be circumstances in which a state submits a Moderate area attainment plan that the EPA is unable to approve in a timely way, potentially creating a situation in which the state cannot qualify for a Serious area attainment date extension (due to its unapproved Moderate area plan) even if the area is reclassified to Serious and cannot practicably attain by the statutory attainment date for a Serious area. The EPA seeks comment on this alternate proposed interpretation of the applicable implementation plan compliance criterion under section 188(e). Recognizing that a situation such as that described above may be rare, the agency also seeks comment on what remedy might be available under the statute if such a situation comes to pass if the EPA were to finalize this alternative proposed interpretation of the applicable implementation plan criterion.
The agency proposes that a state would need to follow a process for determining MSM for a Serious nonattainment area that is generally similar to proposed Option 2 for BACM and BACT described in Section VI.D of this preamble, which would include exemptions from MSM for sources in
Under proposed approach #1 for MSM, the EPA would prescribe a five-step process for states to follow when selecting and implementing MSM. This proposed approach is similar to that used in practice for approving the PM
The first step of this proposed approach would be for the state to update as needed the emissions inventory of direct PM
The second step in this proposed MSM determination process would require the state to perform air quality modeling in order to evaluate, for each of the various source categories included in the emissions inventory for the area, the impact on PM
(April 13, 2000), at page 19969.
The third step in the EPA's first proposed approach to determining MSM for a Serious nonattainment area would involve identifying the potentially most stringent measures in other implementation plans for PM
However, because BACM and BACT represent the “best” level of control feasible for an area, it would be possible for the MSM requirement to result in no more controls and no more emissions reductions in an area than result from the implementation of BACM and BACT. Stated another way, there may be sources or categories for which no other feasible controls exist beyond what a state has already adopted as BACM or BACT. Given the strategy in the nonattainment provisions of the CAA to offset longer attainment timeframes with more stringent control requirements, the EPA therefore proposes to interpret the MSM provision in order to increase the potential that it will result in additional controls beyond the set of measures adopted as BACM and BACT by requiring a state to reanalyze any measures that were rejected during the state's BACM and BACT analysis for the area to see if they are now feasible for the area given the potentially longer attainment date (up to 5 years after the statutory Serious area attainment date) or given the changes that have occurred in the interim that improve the feasibility of previously rejected measures.
The fourth step of this first proposed approach would require the state to compare the potential MSM for each non-
The fifth step would then require that the plan provide for the adoption and expeditious implementation of any MSM that is more stringent than existing measures or, in lieu of adoption, provide a reasoned justification for rejecting the potential MSM,
As noted earlier, the EPA expects that this first proposed approach to determining MSM would be most compatible with the agency's proposed Option 2 for determining BACM and BACT, described in Section VI.D. Under proposed Option 2 for BACM and BACT determinations, a state would be required to implement only those “best” control measures necessary to bring a Serious nonattainment area into attainment expeditiously. Such an approach to BACM and BACT determinations would not incorporate an explicit step in the process for a state to exempt
The EPA's proposed Option 1 for BACM and BACT determinations would include an explicit step in the process for exempting
Therefore, the EPA is also proposing an alternative approach for determining MSM for a Serious nonattainment area that would be more compatible with the EPA's proposed approach #1 for determining BACM and BACT. Under this alternative proposed approach for determining MSM, a state could exempt
The EPA believes that either of these proposed approaches for determining MSM for a Serious nonattainment area would be consistent with the EPA's guidance in the Addendum to define MSM as those measures that can “feasibly be implemented in the relevant area from among those which are either included in any other SIP or have been achieved in practice by any other state.” One of the key features of this guidance relates to identifying control measures implemented elsewhere, which is also a key feature of the EPA's proposed process for identifying RACM and RACT and additional reasonable measures (and BACM and BACT and additional feasible measures, if necessary) for a PM
The EPA notes that section 188(e) does not identify a deadline for a state to implement MSM, while elsewhere the statute establishes a deadline for implementing RACM and RACT and BACM and BACT (
The EPA seeks comment on whether the two proposed approaches to determine MSM are sufficiently consistent with the agency's respective proposed approaches to BACM and BACT determination. The agency also seeks comment on whether considerations regarding its MSM approach should influence the final selection of a BACM and BACT approach.
The EPA believes that a state may submit a request for an extension of the Serious area attainment date either at the time the original Serious area attainment plan is submitted following reclassification of the area or at a point in time closer to the Serious area attainment date. In the first case, when taken together with language under section 189(b)(1)(A)(ii) which describes the possibility of including an impracticability demonstration in a Serious area attainment plan that parallels the impracticability demonstration for a Moderate area attainment plan, section 188(e) appears to set an expectation that a state may request an extension of the attainment date for a Serious area when the state initially submits its Serious area plan. Therefore, the EPA would deem such a request as timely and appropriate.
On the other hand, the EPA also recognizes that a state may prepare and fully implement a timely Serious area plan that includes modeling demonstrating attainment no later than the statutory Serious area attainment date (the end of the tenth calendar year following designation), and yet may see as the attainment date nears that the Serious area will in fact fail to attain by its projected attainment date. While the statute provides a remedy to be instituted immediately upon failure of a Serious area to attain the standard (through contingency measures and other measures stipulated in section 189(d)), the EPA also believes that the criteria of section 188(e) could be applied after a state submits a Serious area attainment plan but prior to the area failing to attain, as long as the area had not already been granted a prior Serious area attainment date extension under section 188(e). In such a case, the EPA believes that it would be acceptable for a state to submit a Serious area attainment date extension request similar to that described above (for submissions made simultaneous with initial Serious area attainment plans) together with a new Serious area attainment plan meeting all of the statutory requirements that apply to such plans. In this case, the complete submission would have to be made in a timely way such that the EPA could fully review the new attainment plan for the area and the accompanying attainment date extension request, including the status of compliance with all requirements and commitments in the Moderate area attainment plan for the area, the justification for the selection of the alternate attainment date, and provisions for the implementation of MSM, prior to making its determination of failure of the area to timely attain the relevant NAAQS.
The EPA seeks comment on this option, particularly with respect to whether the criteria proposed above are appropriate in a situation in which a state seeks a Serious area attainment date extension after submitting a Serious area attainment plan that initially demonstrated attainment by the statutory Serious area attainment date. For example, the EPA seeks comment in particular on whether it would be appropriate to interpret the section 188(e) requirement for a state to have “complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to that area in the implementation plan” as referencing those requirements and commitments contained in the area's Moderate area plan (as proposed above for areas seeking a Serious area attainment date extension simultaneous with submittal of their Serious area plan) or whether, for areas that already submitted Serious area plans demonstrating attainment, it is more appropriate that the state must have complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the area's original Serious area attainment plan. The EPA believes this second interpretation is the more appropriate interpretation as it pertains to Serious areas seeking an extension of their attainment date as they approach their statutory Serious area attainment date, and therefore the agency is proposing and seeking comment on this approach. The EPA believes that this second interpretation is especially preferable if the EPA finalizes its proposal that interprets the SIP compliance requirement for areas seeking an attainment date extension simultaneous with their Serious area attainment plan submittal to mean that the state need only have implemented the control measures in the SIP revisions it has submitted to the EPA to address the CAA requirements in section 189 (
The EPA seeks comment on these proposed options for interpreting and implementing the statutory language at section 188(e) for Serious area attainment date extensions.
In the event that a Serious area fails to attain the PM
A state with a Serious nonattainment area subject to section 189(d) must submit to the EPA its plan to meet the requirements of section 189(d) in the form of a complete attainment plan submission that contains the following elements: (i) An attainment demonstration and provisions for the implementation of measures that will achieve annual emissions reductions of not less than 5 percent from the most recent emissions inventory for the area for each year until attainment (section 189(d)); (ii) quantitative milestones that will be used to measure compliance with the RFP requirement (section 189(c)); and, (iii) regulation of PM
The remainder of this section presents the EPA's proposed requirements for attainment plan submissions under section 189(d).
Section 189(d) requires a state with a Serious PM
As with all other attainment plan submissions required for Moderate and Serious PM
One important aspect of the emissions inventory required to be submitted with an attainment plan under section 189(d) is its role as the basis for calculating the emissions reductions of direct PM
In order to ensure that the “most recent inventory” is representative of the nonattainment problem in the area current at the time of the section 189(d) submission, the EPA proposes that the inventory year must be one of the 3 years from which monitored data was used to determine that the area failed to attain the PM
The EPA recognizes the additional level of effort that may be needed to produce an up-to-date emissions inventory for a nonattainment area, and therefore is proposing and seeking comment on an alternative approach that would allow a state to select an inventory year earlier than one of the 3 years from which monitored data were used to determine that the area failed to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. Under this alternative proposed approach, another inventory year may be included in the plan under specific circumstances with the submission of a written justification for selecting the earlier year and in consultation with the appropriate EPA Regional Office. At a minimum, the state would need to demonstrate that the inventory for the alternative year adequately incorporates emissions reductions projected to be achieved through the implementation of BACM and BACT and additional feasible control measures submitted with the original Serious area attainment plan for the area. The EPA proposes that modification of an older inventory to incorporate those emissions reductions would be an acceptable way to meet this requirement. In considering use of this option, states could be obligated to achieve a larger annual reduction than 5 percent if the older inventory has higher emissions levels than the “most recent inventory” for the area.
The EPA seeks comment on these proposed criteria and options for emissions inventories to be submitted as part of the attainment plan due for a Serious area under section 189(d).
Section 189(d) requires states to develop a new attainment plan for an area that failed to attain by the applicable Serious area attainment date that provides for “an annual reduction in PM
Section III presents three options describing different proposed approaches to such precursor demonstrations, and requests comment on each. The discussion for each option describes how states and the EPA should address precursors for Moderate areas and for Serious areas, including Serious areas that fail to attain the PM
• Option 1: Two independent analyses: (a) An attainment planning
• Option 2: Single analysis demonstrating that all emissions of a particular precursor from within the area do not significantly contribute to PM
• Option 3: An attainment planning analysis demonstrating that control measures for all types of sources of a particular precursor are not needed for expeditious attainment also would be deemed to meet the section 189(e) technical demonstration requirement, meaning that the state would not need to regulate emissions of the particular precursor from major stationary sources under the NNSR permitting program or other control requirements for major stationary sources. Consistent with this approach, for an area subject to the requirements of section 189(d), the state would need to evaluate control measures to identify those needed to achieve a minimum 5 percent reduction in emissions of direct PM
The EPA will finalize its approach to PM
The control strategy to be developed for the attainment plan submission for a Serious area subject to section 189(d) should place particular emphasis on control measures that can be implemented quickly, in order to ensure that the area attains the PM
The EPA believes that in light of the important role that PM
The EPA also proposes and seeks comment on an alternative reading of the statute that would require a state to achieve 5 percent reductions of inventoried emissions of either direct PM
It is important to note that under implementation of either of the options presented above, and as described more fully in Section III of this preamble, the EPA is proposing that in the event that a state has demonstrated and can continue to demonstrate that emissions of a given precursor from all sources in a nonattainment area do not contribute significantly to PM
The statute requires that the requisite minimum 5 percent emissions reductions must be calculated from the total emissions for each precursor and for direct PM
Although section 189(d) requires that a state develop measures that will obtain annual emissions reductions of “not less than 5 percent” from the most recent inventory, the EPA interprets this language to authorize states to elect to front-load emissions reductions in earlier years and still meet the 5 percent per year requirement. The EPA notes that interpreting the statute in this way will encourage states to implement measures earlier, where possible, rather than delay implementation of measures merely to assure that the 5 percent requirement can be met in later years. Thus, using the example described above, the annual reduction requirement for the area would be 5 tons/day from a base year emissions level of 100 tons/day. The required level after year 1 would be 95 tons/day, after year 2 the level would be 90 tons/day, and so on. If the area reached a level of 81 tons/day by the end of year 3, then by the end of year 4 it would only need to reduce emissions by 1 ton/day to yield an emissions level of 80 tons/day. Consistent with its past action to approve a Serious area attainment plan for the San Joaquin Valley (CA) PM
The EPA also proposes to clarify its interpretation of the statutory language under section 189(d) that requires a state to submit a new attainment plan to achieve annual reductions “from the date of such submission until attainment,” to mean annual reductions beginning from the due date of such submission until the new projected attainment date for the area based on the new or additional control measures identified to achieve at least 5 percent emissions reductions annually. This proposed clarification is intended to make clear that even if a state is late in submitting its section 189(d) plan, the area must still achieve its annual 5 percent emissions reductions beginning from the past due date for the section 189(d) plan submission. Because attainment dates for PM
The EPA believes that an appropriate starting point for a state to identify measures to achieve the requisite minimum 5 percent annual emissions reductions of direct PM
In addition, a state may include in the section 189(d) plan control strategy for the area any control measures triggered as contingency measures upon the EPA's determination that area failed to attain the PM
To ensure that attainment plan submissions contain the necessary supporting information for the EPA to review and approve the state's new control strategy to achieve at least 5 percent reductions in emissions of direct PM
• A list of all emissions source categories, sources and activities in the nonattainment area (for multi-state nonattainment areas, this would include source categories, sources and activities from all states which make up the area);
• For each source category, source or activity in the nonattainment area, an inventory of direct PM
• For each source category, source or activity in the nonattainment area, a comprehensive list of potential control measures considered by the state for those sources in the nonattainment area;
• For each potential control measure considered by the state but eliminated from further consideration due to a determination by the state that the control measure or technology was not technologically feasible, a narrative explanation and quantitative or qualitative supporting documentation to justify the state's conclusion;
• For each technologically feasible emission control measure or technology, the state must provide the following information relevant to economic feasibility: (i) the control efficiency by pollutant; (ii) the possible emission reductions by pollutant; (iii) the estimated cost per ton of pollutant reduced; and, (iv) a determination of whether the measure is economically
• For each technologically and economically feasible emission control measure or technology, the date by which the technology or measure could be implemented.
As with other PM
The section 189(d) requirement to reduce emissions by 5 percent per year is in effect a fixed level of RFP to be achieved annually. Accordingly, just as quantitative milestones are used to track progress with RFP requirements, the EPA proposes that the state would be required to submit quantitative milestone reports to describe the area's progress in meeting the 5 percent annual emissions reduction requirement under section 189(d).
Section 189(d) requires a state with a Serious nonattainment area that failed to attain the relevant NAAQS by the applicable Serious area attainment date to submit a new attainment plan for such area within 12 months after the missed attainment date. The EPA is proposing that the same general requirements for attainment demonstrations and modeling that apply to Moderate area plans and Serious area plans due under sections 189(a) and 189(b) should also apply to section 189(d) attainment plans. However, the EPA is proposing additional requirements specific to plans states submitted pursuant to section 189(d) as described below.
The EPA is proposing that the attainment demonstration for Serious areas subject to section 189(d) requirements must consist of: (i) technical analyses such as base year and future year modeling of emissions which identify sources and quantify their emissions that are contributing to violations of the PM
The EPA proposes that states are required to submit air quality modeling in support of an attainment demonstration for a nonattainment area subject to the requirements of section 189(d). The modeling demonstration must show how and when the area will attain the NAAQS. Other than the timing of plan submissions and requirement to achieve 5 percent emissions reductions in direct PM
As discussed more fully in Section VII.I of this preamble, the EPA must establish a new attainment date for a PM
For purposes of determining the attainment date that is as expeditious as practicable, the state must conduct future year modeling which takes into account emissions growth, known controls (including any controls that were previously determined to be RACM or RACT or additional reasonable measures, or BACM or BACT or additional feasible measures for the area), the 5 percent per year emissions reductions required by section 189(d), plus any other emissions controls that are needed for expeditious attainment of the NAAQS. A state performing a modeling analysis for a plan submitted under section 189(d) must select a future modeling year such that all emissions control measures relied on for attainment will have been implemented by the beginning of that year. To demonstrate attainment, the modeling results for the nonattainment area must predict that emissions reductions implemented by the beginning of the last calendar year preceding the attainment date will result in PM
For a PM
As with all other PM
The EPA seeks comment on these proposed attainment demonstration and modeling requirements for new attainment plans due for Serious areas subject to section 189(d).
As with other PM
The EPA proposes that motor vehicle emissions budgets must also be established as part of any RFP plan for direct PM
The EPA seeks comment on this proposed approach related to RFP requirements for new attainment plans due under section 189(d).
The revised attainment plan for any Serious nonattainment area that fails to attain the relevant PM
The section 189(d) plan for an area that failed to attain the standard by the applicable Serious area attainment date would have to contain quantitative milestones to be achieved by 13.5 years from the area's date of designation and every 3 years thereafter until the area's new projected attainment date. In the event a state is developing a revised attainment plan pursuant to section 189(d) that will be due sometime after 13.5 years following designation of the area, the EPA proposes to allow the state to submit quantitative milestones beginning for the year 16.5 from designation and every 3 years thereafter until the area's projected attainment date.
The EPA believes that its proposed requirements for quantitative milestones, described in Sections IV.G and VI.G of this preamble, should also apply to quantitative milestones submitted with any revised attainment plan pursuant to section 189(d), and thus proposes and seeks comment on the agency's proposed milestone requirements for application to attainment plans due under section 189(d).
All PM
The EPA recognizes that identifying contingency measures for a Serious PM
As previously discussed, section 189(d) requires a minimum 5 percent annual reduction in emissions of direct PM
The new attainment date must be as expeditious as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the date of publication in the
As discussed earlier in this section, the EPA will consider the state's attainment demonstration and proposed attainment date for the area, in addition to the state's revised control strategy and the relevant facts and circumstances, in order to identify the most expeditious attainment date practicable for the area.
The EPA seeks comment on this proposal for interpreting the statutory requirements under section 189(d) for a Serious area that fails to attain the PM
Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires states to include in their SIPs a preconstruction review permitting program that regulates the construction and modification of stationary sources as necessary to ensure that NAAQS are achieved. To address the regulation of the larger pollutant-emitting sources (defined as major stationary sources), Congress provided specific permitting requirements in the CAA in parts C and D of title I. The requirements for preconstruction permits under parts C and D of the CAA are commonly known collectively as the major NSR program because they apply specifically to the preconstruction review and permitting of new major stationary sources, and major modifications at existing sources. As explained in Sections VIII.A.1 and 2 of this preamble, the preconstruction review of each new and modified major stationary source generally is carried out on a pollutant-specific basis and the requirements with regard to each pollutant apply based on whether the area in which the proposed major source or major modification would locate is designated attainment (or unclassifiable) or nonattainment for that pollutant at the time the permit is issued.
Part C of title I of the CAA (hereafter referred to simply as part C) contains implementation plan requirements that apply to new major stationary sources and major modifications in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for any NAAQS. These requirements constitute the PSD program. Pursuant to part C, the EPA has adopted PSD regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 (minimum requirements for an approvable state PSD program in the SIP) and 40 CFR 52.21 (the federal PSD program, applicable in areas where the state does not have an EPA-approved PSD program in its SIP). The EPA last amended the PSD regulations for PM
Part D of title I of the CAA (hereafter referred to as part D) contains implementation plan requirements for nonattainment areas, which include the requirements for permitting new major stationary sources and major modifications in designated nonattainment areas, referred to as the NNSR program. As noted earlier, part D contains several subparts that include various requirements for addressing nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 addresses plan requirements for nonattainment areas generally, including section 172(c)(5) which requires preconstruction and operating permits for new major stationary sources and major modifications in nonattainment areas. Section 173 outlines the minimum statutory requirements for a state's NNSR permit program and serves as the basis for the EPA's NNSR regulations for PM
Federal regulations pertaining to the preconstruction permitting of new major stationary sources and major modifications in areas designated nonattainment are contained at 40 CFR 51.165; part 51, appendix S; and, § 52.24. An approved NNSR program in a state's implementation plan must, at a minimum, meet the program requirements set forth in the federal NNSR requirements at 40 CFR 51.165, which for PM
The EPA interprets the requirement established under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA for states to regulate the construction and modification of sources to apply in nonattainment areas as of the effective date of a new nonattainment area designation.
Accordingly, states with newly designated nonattainment areas for the revised primary PM
New major stationary sources are subject to the NNSR requirements when they are major for the pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment.
For each proposed major new source and major modification, the general NNSR requirements that are required to be included in a state's SIP include: (i) the installation and continuous operation of pollution control technology that complies with the LAER; (ii) the acquisition of creditable emissions reductions to adequately offset the proposed emissions increase of the nonattainment pollutant; and, (iii) a demonstration of compliance with other analyses as required under section 173 of the CAA.
Following the adoption of new PM NAAQS based on the PM
The approach for implementing the NNSR program for PM changed when in 1990 Congress established a new subpart 4 specifically to address implementation plan requirements for PM
In a letter to its Regional Offices dated March 11, 1991,
The EPA revised the PM NAAQS in 1997, establishing new annual and 24-hour NAAQS using PM
With regard to NSR applicability for PM
As described above in Section II.C of this preamble, in January 2013 the court in
The court decision, requiring that the EPA implement the PM
The second relevant subpart 4 provision governs the treatment of major sources of PM
The court's observation that the EPA's prior presumptions regarding precursors were inconsistent with the explicit requirements of section 189(e) that major sources of all PM
In this section, the EPA presents for comment certain proposed revisions to the NNSR regulations as well as alternative approaches for incorporating the subpart 4 requirements into the NNSR regulations for PM
As explained above, the existing NNSR regulations applicable to PM
a.
While the court decision did not mandate that the EPA define “major source” and “major stationary source” for PM
A possible alternative approach would be to promulgate a PM
Accordingly, while the EPA seeks comment on this alternative approach, because of the associated limitations just described, the first option (
b.
The specific “control requirements” for new or modified major stationary sources of PM
As described in Section VIII.A.2.b of this preamble, the NNSR regulations at 40 CFR 51.165 currently require states to regulate new major stationary sources and major modifications of SO
First, the EPA is proposing to revise the regulations at 40 CFR 51.165 to ensure that new major stationary sources and major modifications of the four scientific precursors for PM
While section 189(e) generally requires that major stationary sources of PM
In Section III of this preamble, the EPA described the agency's proposed approaches for interpreting requirements for states to control PM
The second proposed change with regard to the nonattainment area control requirements for PM
In proposing to set the major source threshold for each PM
As noted above, section 189(b)(3) sets a lower major source threshold of 70 tpy of PM
Consistent with this proposal, the EPA is also proposing to set the major source threshold for Serious areas for each precursor at 70 tpy of that particular precursor. As noted above, section 189(e) makes the control requirements for major stationary sources of PM
The EPA's proposal to set a major source threshold of 70 tpy for Serious areas for each PM
The EPA also solicits comments on the appropriateness of setting the precursor major source thresholds at a different rate, particularly if, as alternatively proposed above, the agency defines “major stationary source” for sources of direct PM
Moreover, the EPA believes that a reasonable argument can be made that whatever threshold is set for PM
The preferred ratios as presented in the 2008 notice were later challenged in a petition for reconsideration and the EPA withdrew them via an EPA memorandum issued in 2011.
Although the statutory definition at section 189(b)(3) applicable to PM
This conclusion is also consistent with the limited legislative history on this issue. A House (of Representatives) Report accompanying the 1990 amendments to the CAA described the effects of adding section 189(b)(3) to include the requirement that “new or modified sources emitting 70 tons or more per year of VOC will be subject to new source review requirements.”
The EPA does not believe that a sufficient technical basis exists at this time to enable the agency to propose specific higher major source thresholds for any of the four PM
c.
The 2008 PM
As explained in the 2008 PM
Nevertheless, the EPA gave some consideration in the development of the 2008 PM
The EPA is currently undertaking a separate rulemaking for both NNSR and PSD in which it intends to include a technical analysis of each PM
It is the EPA's expectation that any new or revised significant emissions rates for the individual PM
d.
In the final 2012 PM NAAQS rule, the EPA established a grandfathering provision that would enable some proposed new and modified sources
In the final 2012 PM NAAQS rule, the EPA expressed its disagreement with those commenters, explaining that the obligation to adopt new provisions under a state's NNSR program will not apply with regard to the revised NAAQS until such time as an area is designated nonattainment, and beginning on the effective date of the new area designations for PM
After further considering the issue during the development of this proposal, the EPA has decided not to propose a grandfathering provision that would apply to pending PSD permit applications that were submitted but not approved prior to the effective date of the new nonattainment designations for the 2012 primary annual PM
As explained in Section VIII.D of this preamble, states will have 18 months from the date of the new nonattainment designations to revise their existing NNSR programs or establish new programs in accordance with the applicable requirements under subpart 4. Where the area was already designated nonattainment for any prior PM
The EPA is not proposing to add any grandfathering provisions that would apply to changes in NNSR permitting requirements in areas that the EPA may already have designated nonattainment for PM
As described above, 40 CFR 52.24(k) provides that the Emission Offset
Permitting requirements for new major stationary sources and major modifications in PM
As explained in Section VIII.B.2 of this preamble, under the existing requirements for NNSR plans at 40 CFR 51.165, SO
As an interim measure to facilitate permitting while states develop NNSR rules for PM
Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to revise the definition of regulated NSR pollutant as contained in Appendix S to provide for the regulation of some precursors during the transition period, but not others. Specifically, for reasons explained below, the EPA is proposing to require that both SO
The EPA is proposing to include SO
On the other hand, the EPA expects that the cases where NO
As one alternative approach that the EPA is presenting for public comment, the agency is proposing to amend Appendix S to regulate not only SO
Another alternative that the agency is proposing for comment is for the EPA to establish a phased-in process for regulating PM
Separately, the EPA is proposing to amend Appendix S by revising the definition of “major stationary source” to include a separate PM
The EPA is not proposing any Appendix S provisions for grandfathering proposed new and modified sources from newly established permit requirements applicable to PM
For Moderate areas, section 189(a)(2)(B) requires that states make an attainment plan submission satisfying the requirements contained therein, including applicable NNSR programs for PM
In the event a Moderate area is reclassified as a Serious PM
Because the EPA designates nonattainment areas for the primary annual and 24-hour PM
Section 188(f) of the CAA provides a means for the EPA to waive a specific date for attainment and certain control and planning requirements for PM
On March 22, 2007, the EPA promulgated the “Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events; Final Rule” (72 FR 13560), known as the Exceptional Events Rule, pursuant to the 2005 amendment of CAA section 319.
The Exceptional Events Rule addresses elevated emissions from specific events that influence monitored air quality concentrations. The EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 50.1(j) define an “exceptional event” as one that “affects air quality, is not reasonably controllable or preventable, is an event caused by human activity that is unlikely to recur at a particular location or a natural event, and is determined by the Administrator in accordance with 40 CFR 50.14 to be an exceptional event.” Further, 40 CFR 50.1(j) explicitly provides that exceptional events do “. . . not include stagnation of air masses or meteorological inversions, a meteorological event involving high temperatures or lack of precipitation, or air pollution relating to source noncompliance.” At 40 CFR 50.1(k), the EPA's regulations define a “natural event” as an event in which human activity plays little or no direct causal role to the event in question.
If wildfire is a potential contributor to exceedances of the NAAQS and exceptional events, the EPA urges state and local agencies to coordinate with the land management agencies, as appropriate, in developing plans and appropriate public communications regarding public safety and reducing exposure. This action can directly help states meet their Exceptional Events Rule obligation whereby “states must provide public notice, public education, and must provide for implementation of reasonable measures to protect public health when an event occurs.” When wildfire impacts are significant in a particular area, air agencies and communities may be able to lessen the impacts of wildfires by working collaboratively with land managers and land owners to employ various mitigation measures including taking steps to minimize fuel loading in areas vulnerable to fire.
The EPA notes that there could be some potential overlap between the application of the Exceptional Events Rule and section 188(f). The EPA believes that this potential for overlap can best be addressed by considering the applicability of the Exceptional Events Rule and section 188(f) in sequence. Thus, the EPA recommends
The EPA's Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR 51.390 and part 93, subpart A) establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether transportation activities conform to the SIP. These activities include adopting, funding or approving transportation plans, transportation improvement programs (TIPs) and federally supported highway and transit projects. The EPA first promulgated the Transportation Conformity Rule on November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188), and subsequently published several amendments. For example, the EPA published a final rule on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004) that provided conformity procedures for state and local agencies under the 1997 PM
With regard to general conformity, the EPA first promulgated general conformity regulations in November 1993 (40 CFR part 51, subpart W, 40 CFR part 93, subpart B). Subsequently the EPA finalized revisions to the general conformity regulations on April 5, 2010 (75 FR 17254). Besides ensuring that federal actions not covered by the transportation conformity rule will not interfere with the SIP, the general conformity program also fosters communications between federal agencies and state/local air quality agencies, provides for public notification of and access to federal agency conformity determinations and allows for air quality review of individual federal actions. More information on the general conformity program is available at
b.
c.
With regard to transportation conformity, the conformity grace period applies to all areas designated nonattainment for a new or revised PM
Isolated rural nonattainment and maintenance areas are areas that do not contain or are not part of an MPO (40 CFR 93.101). Conformity requirements for isolated rural nonattainment and maintenance areas can be found at 40 CFR 93.109(g). One year after the effective date of the initial nonattainment designation for a given pollutant and NAAQS, conformity requirements with regard to that pollutant and standard would apply in any nonattainment areas that are isolated rural areas. Per the transportation conformity rule, an isolated rural area would be required to make a transportation conformity determination only at the point when a transportation project needs funding or approval. This project level conformity determination may occur significantly after the 1-year grace period has ended.
d.
CAA section 176(c)(5) establishes that conformity applies to: a nonattainment area and each pollutant for which the area is designated as a nonattainment area; and an area that was designated as a nonattainment area but that was later redesignated by the Administrator as an attainment area and that is required to develop a maintenance plan under CAA section 7505a with respect to the specific pollutant for which the area was designated nonattainment. Section 176(c)(5) is clear that transportation and general conformity apply in nonattainment areas and in areas that have been redesignated to attainment and are required to develop a maintenance plan under section 175A.
Section 175A(a) establishes the requirements for areas that are required to submit a maintenance plan as one of the requirements that must be fulfilled in order for an area to be redesignated to attainment.
Section 175A(a) requires nonattainment areas for primary NAAQS to submit maintenance plans in order to be redesignated, and such plans must ensure maintenance of the standard for at least 10 years after redesignation. Section 175A(a) does not require nonattainment areas for secondary NAAQS to submit maintenance plans in order to be designated to attainment. Therefore, the EPA concludes that transportation and general conformity do not apply in areas that have been redesignated for any secondary NAAQS, such as the 1997 secondary annual PM
Elsewhere in this notice, the EPA is proposing options for revoking the 1997 primary annual PM
However, for any area that has been redesignated to attainment for the 1997 secondary NAAQS and is not designated nonattainment for the 2012 primary annual PM
e.
However, if this is the first time that transportation conformity will apply in a state, such a state is required by the statute and EPA regulations to submit a SIP revision that addresses three specific transportation conformity requirements that address consultation procedures and written commitments to control or mitigation measures associated with conformity determinations for transportation plans, TIPs or projects (40 CFR 51.390). Additional information and guidance can be found in the EPA's “Guidance for Developing Transportation Conformity State Implementation Plans” (
Federal actions estimated to have an annual net emissions increase less than the
However, because the definition of precursors currently in the general conformity regulations at 40 CFR 93.152(b)(1) does not reflect the elimination of rebuttable presumptions for certain PM
b.
Significant tracts of land under federal management may also be included in nonattainment area boundaries. The role of fire in these areas should be assessed and emissions budgets developed in concert with those federal land management agencies. In such areas the EPA encourages states to consider in any baseline, modeling and SIP attainment inventory used and/or submitted to include emissions expected from projects subject to general conformity, including emissions from wildland fire that may be reasonably expected in the area. Where appropriate, states may consider developing plans for addressing wildland fuels in collaboration with land managers and owners. Information is available from DOI and USDA Forest Service on the ecological role of fire and on smoke management programs and basic smoke management practices.
This section describes the ongoing status of the EPA's Clean Data Policy and proposes provisions applicable to any determinations of attainment under current and future PM
The EPA's interpretation of the CAA applies when the agency, after notice-and-comment rulemaking, issues a “clean data determination” (CDD), in
The emissions inventory is a basic compilation of information used to characterize the sources of emissions of the nonattainment area. Section 172(c)(3), the statutory provision requiring submission of an emissions inventory, is not tied to attainment of the NAAQS, unlike the attainment planning provisions which are suspended by a CDD. A base year inventory continues to be relevant to a nonattainment area that is attaining the NAAQS and has obtained a CDD because, for example, the inventory is a necessary component to an approvable redesignation request. In addition, in the event the air quality in the area exceeds the standard in a subsequent year, the state would be obligated to submit an attainment demonstration and other planning elements for the area, and a base year inventory would need to be available immediately in order for the state to submit an approvable attainment plan expeditiously. Similarly, the new source review requirement is not suspended because section 172(c)(5) is not tied to attainment of the NAAQS, and an area with a CDD is still designated nonattainment. NNSR permitting is required in each nonattainment area until the area is redesignated to attainment.” For the past two decades, and for many NAAQS, the EPA has consistently applied its Clean Data Policy interpretation to attainment-related provisions of subparts 1, 2 and 4 of Part D, Title I of the CAA. The Clean Data Policy is the subject of several EPA memoranda and regulations and numerous individual rulemakings published in the
The EPA has previously articulated its Clean Data Policy interpretation under subpart 4 in implementing the PM
As with its Clean Data Policy interpretation for 8-hour ozone, which the EPA embodied in a regulation that was upheld by the D.C. Circuit in
A final determination of attainment, also known as a clean data determination, would not constitute a redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3). The state would still have to meet the statutory requirements for redesignation in order to be redesignated to attainment. A determination of attainment for purposes of the Clean Data Policy is also not linked to any particular attainment deadline, and is not necessarily equivalent to a determination that an area has attained the standard by its applicable attainment deadline,
a.
b.
With respect to RFP, section 171(1) states that, for purposes of part D, RFP “means such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.” 42 U.S.C. 7501(1). Thus, whether dealing with the general RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2), the ozone-specific RFP requirements of sections 182(b) and (c), or the specific RFP requirements for PM
In the General Preamble, the EPA noted with respect to section 189(c) that the purpose of the milestone requirement is “to provide for emission reductions adequate to achieve the standards by the applicable attainment date (H.R. Rep. No. 490 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 267 (1990)).” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), at page 13539. If an area has in fact attained the standard, the stated purpose of the RFP requirement will have already been fulfilled.
Where the area has attained the standard and there are no further milestones, there is no further requirement to make a submission showing that such milestones have been met. This is consistent with the position that the EPA took with respect to the general RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2) in the General Preamble and in the May 10, 1995 Seitz memorandum
Inasmuch as each of these requirements is linked with the attainment demonstration or RFP requirements of section 182(b)(1) or 182(c)(2), if an area is not subject to the requirement to submit the underlying attainment demonstration or RFP plan, it need not submit the related SIP submission either. (Seitz memo, page 4).
c.
Section 172(c)(9) provides that: “SIPs in nonattainment areas shall provide for the implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable under this part. Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as contingency measures to take effect in any such case without further action by the state or the EPA.”
The contingency measure requirement is inextricably tied to the RFP and attainment demonstration requirements. Contingency measures are implemented if RFP targets are not achieved, or if attainment is not realized by the attainment date. Where an area has already achieved attainment and continues to do so it has no need to rely on contingency measures to come into attainment or to make further progress to attainment. As the EPA stated in the General Preamble: “The section 172(c)(9) requirements for contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date.”
d.
e.
In addition, for a Serious area that failed to attain the relevant PM
For Moderate nonattainment areas, the planning elements that are not suspended with a clean data determination are: Emissions inventories, nonattainment new source review including 189(e) control requirements for major stationary source precursors, and conformity. For Serious nonattainment areas, the planning elements not suspended with a clean data determination are: Emissions inventories, nonattainment NSR including section 189(e) control requirements for major stationary sources of PM
The suspension of the state's obligations to submit attainment plan elements such as provisions for RACM and RACT, RFP and quantitative milestones, contingency measures, an attainment demonstration and other related attainment planning requirements exists only for as long as the area continues to monitor attainment of the relevant NAAQS prior to redesignation. If the EPA determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking but prior to redesignation, that the area has monitored a violation of the relevant NAAQS, the basis for the suspension of the requirements no longer exists. In that case, the area would again be subject to the requirement to submit the pertinent attainment plan elements or SIP revisions and would need to address those requirements. Thus, a final determination that the area need not currently submit one of the required attainment plan elements amounts to no more than a suspension of the obligation to make the submission for so long as the area continues to attain the standard. Only if and when the EPA redesignates the area to attainment under section 107(d)(3) would the area be permanently relieved of these attainment plan submission obligations.
Upon the EPA's determination that an area is currently attaining the applicable PM
The EPA recognizes that some states are affected not only by local and regional sources of PM
Section 179B of the CAA, entitled “International Border Areas,” applies to areas that could attain the relevant NAAQS by the statutory attainment date “but for” emissions emanating from outside the U.S. Specifically, section 179B(a) provides that the EPA shall approve an attainment plan for such an area if: (i) the attainment plan meets all other applicable requirements of the CAA, and (ii) the submitting state can satisfactorily demonstrate that “but for emissions emanating from outside of the United States,” the area would attain and maintain the relevant NAAQS. In addition, section 179B(d) applies specifically to PM
Under section 179B, areas affected by emissions from outside the U.S. continue to have attainment plan obligations. First, even if the area is impacted by emissions from outside the U.S., that fact does not affect the designation of the area. An area that is violating the relevant NAAQS, even if emissions from outside the U.S. contribute to that violation, will be designated nonattainment. Section 179B does not affect designation. Second, as a result of that designation, the state is required to meet the applicable attainment plan requirements for the relevant NAAQS. Section 179B does not negate the attainment plan requirements, it only eliminates the obligation for an attainment demonstration that demonstrates attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, and elimination of that obligation is conditioned upon the state meeting all other attainment plan requirements.
Under section 179B, states remain obligated to meet the attainment plan requirements other than the requirement to demonstrate timely attainment. The applicable requirements for an attainment plan for PM
The EPA has considered this past interpretation of RACM and RACT requirements in the context of section 179B attainment plans for PM
Therefore, the EPA is proposing and seeking comment on two proposed approaches that would give greater clarity to the agency's existing interpretation of control strategy requirements for Moderate area attainment plans to be approved under section 179B. The first proposed interpretation would clarify that the control strategy for an area that could attain by the Moderate area attainment date, “but for” foreign emissions of direct PM
More specifically, under the first proposed approach for identifying appropriate control measures on sources in a Moderate PM
The EPA also seeks comment on a distinct, second proposed approach for interpreting what would constitute an acceptable control strategy for sources in an area for which a state is seeking an attainment plan approval under section 179B. Under this second option, a state would need to demonstrate that its selected control measures for a Moderate nonattainment area would achieve reductions in PM
The EPA seeks comment on these two approaches to clarify what constitutes a reasonable control strategy in the context of a SIP submitted pursuant to section 179B. The EPA is also proposing regulations for the PM
In international border areas, EPA will not require the contingency measures for PM
The EPA is proposing that this interpretation of section 179B(a)(1) with respect to contingency measures and RFP requirements should apply to Moderate nonattainment areas for the PM
The EPA has historically evaluated section 179B “but for” demonstrations on a case-by-case basis, based on the
Although monitor data cannot be excluded for a determination of whether an area has attained based solely on the fact the data are affected by emissions from outside the U.S., such data may be excluded from consideration if they were significantly influenced by exceptional events under section 319(b)(3) of the CAA. Where international transport of emissions contributes to an exceedance or violation and comes from natural sources such as wildfires, and otherwise meets the criteria contained in the EPA's Exceptional Events Rule, it can be addressed by that rule.
Depending on the nature and scope of international emissions events affecting air quality in the U.S., the EPA may be able to assist states in developing approvable exceptional events demonstrations. More generally, the EPA believes that the best approach for evaluating the potential impacts of international transport on nonattainment is for states to work with the EPA on a case-by-case basis to determine the most appropriate information and analytical methods for each area's unique situation. The EPA will work with states that are developing attainment plans for which section 179B is relevant, and ensure the states have the benefit of the EPA's understanding of international transport of PM
Section 172(c)(6) in subpart 1 of the CAA requires nonattainment SIPs to “include enforceable emission limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques . . . as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment.” In the remanded 2007 PM
The EPA continues to believe that complete and effective regulations that ensure compliance with an applicable emissions limit would have to include requirements for both performance testing of emissions and ongoing monitoring of the compliance performance of control measures, and the agency proposes to require that SIP regulations that establish emission limits include the following:
(a) Indicator(s) of compliance—the pollutant or pollutants of interest (
(b) Test method—reference to a specific EPA or other published set of sample collection and analytical procedures, equipment design and performance criteria, and the calculations providing data in units of the indicator of compliance (Section IX.K of this preamble presents a discussion of specific test methods for condensable PM
(c) Averaging time—the minimum length of each required test run and the requirement to average the results of the test runs (
(d) Frequency—the maximum time between emissions or performance tests (
In order to be complete with regard to compliance monitoring provisions, the EPA proposes that regulations adopted into the SIP must include the following critical elements:
(a) Indicator(s) of performance—the parameter or parameters measured or observed for demonstrating proper operation of the pollution control measure or compliance with the applicable emissions limitation or standard. Indicators of performance could include direct or predicted emissions measurements, process or control device (and capture system) operational parametric values that correspond to compliance with efficiency or emissions limits, and recorded findings of verification of work practice activities, raw material or fuel pollutant content, or design
(b) Measurement technique—the means used to gather and record information of or about the indicators of performance. The components of the measurement technique include the detector type or analytical method, location and installation specifications, inspection procedures, and quality assurance and quality control measures. Examples of measurement approaches include continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS), continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS), continuous parametric monitoring systems (CPMS), performance testing, vendor or laboratory analytical data, and manual inspections and data collection that include making records of process conditions, raw materials or fuel specifications, or work practices. Directly enforceable emission measurements, such as PM CEMs, are preferred wherever feasible. Where COMS are feasible, it should be clear that opacity is a directly enforceable standard, not merely an indicator of compliance;
(c) Averaging time—the period over which to average data to verify compliance with the emissions limitation or standard or proper operation of the pollution control measure. Examples of averaging time include a 3-hour average in units of the emissions limitation, a 30-day rolling average emissions value, a daily average of a control device operational parametric range, periodic (
(d) Monitoring frequency—the number of monitoring data values recorded over a specified time interval. Examples of monitoring frequencies include at least one data value every 15 minutes for CEMS or CPMS, at least every 10 seconds for COMS, upon receipt or application of raw materials or fuel to the process, or at least once per operating day (or week, month, etc.) for performance testing, work practice verification, or equipment design inspections; and,
(e) Reporting and record retention requirements—criteria for retaining monitoring and test data in an electronic form and periodic electronic reporting of information as needed to the compliance office. Electronic record retention and submission have been widely adopted, and the EPA believes that such readily accessible documentation could be used by state, federal and other analysts to spot trends and non-compliance more easily than if these entities conducted reviews of paper documents. The EPA also recommends that compliance reports be made available online so that the general public can readily access the information without the need to submit Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the EPA. The EPA is in the process of revising federal rules to make similar requirements apply.
The EPA continues to believe that approval of regulations adopted into SIPs would have to ensure that these critical elements are present and clearly defined to be approvable. In particular, the compliance obligations, including emissions limits and other applicable requirements, would need to be representative of and accountable to the assumptions used in a state's attainment demonstration. This accountability would include the ability to transfer the applicable regulatory requirements to a title V operating permit subject to the EPA and public review.
The EPA seeks comment on the elements proposed to be required to ensure that regulations adopted into a SIP are enforceable.
From a planning and resource perspective, the EPA believes that it can be efficient for states to develop integrated control strategies that address multiple pollutants rather than separate strategies for each pollutant or NAAQS individually. An integrated air quality control strategy that reduces multiple pollutants can help ensure that reductions are efficiently achieved and produce the greatest overall air quality benefits. For example, it is widely known that certain control measures that reduce emissions of NO
In June 2007, the EPA's CAA Advisory Committee (CAAAC) recommended that the agency allow states to integrate SIP requirements and other air quality goals into a comprehensive plan.
The EPA has encouraged states to take a multi-pollutant approach to managing air quality.
While the agency encourages states to develop multi-pollutant plans, it recognizes that the requirement for the agency to review and, as necessary, revise NAAQS every 5 years, which can trigger new statutory attainment plan submission and attainment dates, as well as the ever-evolving understanding of pollutants and many control programs that may be available to reduce emissions, can sometimes make such efforts challenging. For example, under the current law, the 2007 submission date for Regional Haze SIPs has already passed while RACT SIPs for nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or higher for the 2008 ozone NAAQS were due more than 2 years before the due date for Moderate area
Ideally, an air quality management plan (AQMP) is a set of pollution reduction strategies/planning activities for an area demonstrating: attainment/maintenance of one or more NAAQS; risk reductions from HAPs; improvements in visibility and ecosystem health; and, integration of land use, transportation, energy and climate activities in the area. Three areas in the country—North Carolina, New York and the City of St. Louis (involving both Missouri and Illinois)—participated in an EPA-led pilot effort to develop multi-pollutant AQMPs. The pilot projects provided lessons regarding AQMP development that should prove useful to other areas interested in better integrating their air quality planning. The areas' initial AQMPs and other materials are available on the EPA's Web site.
Implementation of the 2012 PM
• Develop models for the attainment demonstration that include previously implemented or planned measures to reduce PM
• Conduct an integrated assessment of the impact that controls have on ambient levels of PM
• Use common data bases and analytical tools, where possible.
The EPA is requesting comment on what incentives or assistance the agency might be able to provide to encourage states to integrate their planning activities.
A multi-pollutant assessment, or one-atmosphere modeling, is conducted with a single air quality model that is capable of simulating transport and formation of multiple pollutants simultaneously.
Multi-pollutant assessments are recommended for PM
Because of these relationships, models and data analysis intended to address PM
States may also find it desirable to assess the impact of PM
As discussed in Section II of this preamble, when the EPA sets a primary NAAQS, the CAA directs the Administrator to establish a standard that is “requisite” to protect public health with “an adequate margin of safety.”
Section 109(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to periodically review (every 5 years) the science upon which the standards are based and the standards themselves. As discussed elsewhere in this proposal, in its 2012 review of the PM NAAQS, the EPA revised the primary annual PM
In addition, the Policy Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-60) observed that the highest concentrations of PM
Sources of direct PM emissions have their greatest impact on PM
The process for developing attainment plans for the current and future PM
With this in mind, the EPA is seeking comment on additional ways that air agencies can provide public health protection specifically for overburdened populations when preparing attainment plans for the PM
The EPA believes that states have sufficient flexibility and discretion under the CAA in implementing their attainment strategies to focus resources on controlling those sources of emissions that directly and adversely affect low-income and other at risk populations. By reducing impacts on at-risk populations, states can maximize health benefits, thereby creating greater net benefits for the state in a cost-effective manner.
There are a number of actions that states could take to focus resources in this way. Some of these actions can help identify areas where additional ambient monitoring may be needed in low income and overburdened communities.
• Develop databases and online mapping tools that enable users (including state staff, public, and the regulated community) to understand where sources of direct PM
• Incorporate existing mapping tools which identify target areas in the attainment plan development process and related actions; and,
• Analyze emissions data, ambient data, and available modeling to identify potential unmonitored PM
Once target areas for addressing these sensitive population needs within a nonattainment area have been identified, the state could consider taking any of the following actions which help target emissions reductions that may be needed to attain the PM
• Prioritize the selection of control measures that target reductions of direct PM
• Improve the understanding of the potential impact of minor sources by improving or generating an emissions inventory for such minor sources, including sources that are not currently required to report emissions, to generate options on how emissions can be reduced in the target area;
• Design voluntary programs to reduce VMT and mobile source-related PM
• Incorporate environmental justice criteria into the alternatives analysis to ensure appropriate siting and require cumulative impact studies for proposed projects;
• Eliminate exemptions from and/or raise thresholds for minor source permitting;
• Develop a list of potential supplemental environmental projects (SEPs)
• Prioritize targeted enforcement strategies.
In addition to the above, states could increase opportunities for meaningful involvement of community groups in attainment plan development, annual monitoring network plan reviews, and permitting processes
• Develop advisory boards and/or develop enhanced notice-and-comment requirements for low income and minority communities to assure meaningful involvement relative to projects that impact their communities;
• Provide special notice of important actions affecting target areas in appropriate languages and with attention to cultural barriers;
• Provide advance notification for low income and minority communities of upcoming opportunities for public comment on SIPs, ambient air monitoring plans, and other relevant actions;
• Maintain multi-lingual Web sites and offer translators for public meetings and hearings;
• Coordinate with the state's EJ coordinator to assist with outreach efforts; and,
• Provide states with appropriate federal EJ guidance tools.
The EPA is seeking comment on these examples and whether and how the EPA might provide recommendations to states preparing attainment plans for the 2012 and any future PM
The 1998 Tribal Air Rule (TAR) (40 CFR part 49), which implements section 301(d) of the CAA, gives tribes the option of developing TIPs. Specifically, the TAR provides for the tribes to be treated in the same manner as a state in implementing certain sections of the CAA. However, tribes are not required to develop implementation plans. The EPA determined in the TAR that it was inappropriate to treat tribes in a manner similar to a state with regard to specific plan submittal and implementation deadlines for NAAQS-related requirements, including, but not limited to, such deadlines in CAA sections 110(a)(1), 172(a)(2), 182 187, and 191.
If a tribe elects to do a TIP, the agency will work with the tribe to develop an appropriate schedule which meets the needs of the tribe, and which does not interfere with the attainment of the NAAQS in other jurisdictions. The tribe developing a TIP can work with the EPA Regional Office on the appropriateness of addressing RFP and other substantive SIP requirements that may or may not be appropriate for the tribe's situation.
The CAA and the TAR provide tribes opportunities and flexibility for the tribe in the preparation of a TIP to address the NAAQS. If a tribe elects to develop a TIP, the TAR offers flexibility for the tribe to identify and implement on a case-by-case basis only those CAA programs or reasonably severable program elements needed to address their specific air quality problems. In the TAR, the EPA described this flexible implementation approach as a modular approach. Each tribe may evaluate the particular activities, including potential sources of air pollution within the exterior boundaries of its reservation (or within non-reservation areas for which it has demonstrated jurisdiction), which cause or contribute to its air pollution problem. A tribe may adopt measures for controlling those sources of PM
The EPA would review and approve, where appropriate, these partial TIPs as one step of an overall air quality plan to attain the NAAQS. A tribe may step in later to add other elements to the plan, or the EPA may step in to fill gaps in the air quality plan as necessary or appropriate. In approving a TIP, the agency would evaluate whether the plan appropriately coordinates with the overall air quality plan for an area when tribal lands are part of a multi-jurisdictional area.
Because many PM
To date, very few tribes have submitted for the EPA's approval TIPs covering areas over which they have jurisdiction. In the absence of a TIP, the EPA is authorized under the TAR to implement CAA programs in such areas as necessary or appropriate. For example, an unhealthy air quality situation on an Indian reservation may require the EPA to develop a FIP to reduce emissions from sources on the reservation. Likewise, if the agency determines that sources in an area under tribal jurisdiction could interfere with a larger nonattainment area meeting the NAAQS by its attainment date, it would develop a FIP for those sources in consultation with the tribe, as necessary or appropriate.
States have an obligation to notify other states in advance of any public hearing(s) on their state plans if such plans will significantly impact such other states. 40 CFR 51.102(d)(5). Under section 301(d) of the CAA and the TAR, tribes may become eligible to be treated in a manner similar to states (TAS) for this purpose. Affected tribes with this status must also be informed of the contents of such state plans and given access to the documentation supporting these plans. In addition to this mandated process, the EPA encourages states to extend the same notice to all affected tribes, regardless of their TAS status.
Executive Orders and the EPA's Indian policies generally call for the EPA to coordinate and consult with tribes on matters that affect tribes. Executive Order 13175, titled, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” requires the EPA to develop a process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Tribal implications.” In addition, the EPA's policies include the agency's 1984 Indian Policy relating to Indian tribes and implementation of federal environmental programs, the April 10, 2009, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards guidance “Consulting with Indian Tribal Governments,” and the “EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribes.” Consistent with these policies, the EPA intends to meet with tribes on activities potentially affecting the attainment and maintenance of the current and future PM
The EPA believes there are significant advantages for states, tribes and local agencies to take steps to reduce direct PM
In January 2013, the EPA began a new early emissions reduction program for attainment areas called “PM Advance,” which is much like the related “Ozone Advance” program that began in April 2012. Additional information about the PM Advance program for the annual and 24-hour PM
The EPA recognizes that residential wood smoke is a concern for many nonattainment areas. The EPA estimates that wood stoves, hydronic heaters and fireplaces emit more than 345,000 tons of PM
To reduce fine particle pollution, many PM
For purposes of demonstrating compliance with the EPA's air quality regulatory requirements, the EPA, air agencies, and sources rely on two basic types of monitoring: ambient air quality monitoring and stationary source emissions monitoring. Ambient air quality monitoring, as discussed in Section II of this preamble, entails collecting and measuring samples of criteria pollutants in ambient air to evaluate air quality as compared to clean air standards and historical information. Stationary source emissions monitoring, on the other hand, entails collecting and using measurement data (or other information) from individual stationary sources to demonstrate compliance with emissions standards, to assess process or control device performance, or to verify work practices. While ambient air quality monitoring is used to assess compliance with the NAAQS, stationary source emissions monitoring is used to assess compliance with source-specific regulations under programs like the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), the compliance assurance monitoring (CAM) program, the title V air operating permits program, and the acid deposition control program, as well as specific SIP control measures.
Accurate stationary source emissions monitoring is critical for purposes of developing accurate emissions inventories and in order to identify appropriate control measures to reduce emissions from stationary sources. In addition, after control measures are in place, stationary source emissions monitoring provides process and control device performance information to the facility operator so that appropriate corrective action can be taken if emission levels exceed applicable thresholds. Thus, appropriate stationary source emissions monitoring requirements, like the control measures with which they are associated, are a fundamental element of an approvable attainment plan.
By way of example, in a limited study on improving stationary source emissions monitoring, the EPA found that revising the measurement technique at a stationary source could provide information to the facility operator to take corrective action that could potentially reduce emissions up to 15 percent, and that increasing monitoring frequency at the facility could provide information that could be used to inform corrective actions that could yield potential stationary source emissions reductions of up to 13 percent.
Because of the important role that effective stationary source emissions monitoring can play in informing the development of attainment strategies for PM
(1) Based on your experience, in which cases do you believe improved monitoring techniques are more appropriate than visual emissions (VE) techniques for monitoring compliance with PM
(2) Based on your experience, are bag leak detection systems, PM continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS), or PM continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) reliable, cost-effective methods for monitoring compliance with PM emissions? Please provide additional information on reliability and cost to support your position.
(3) Will increasing the frequency of VE observations resolve the issue of applicability of VE techniques for monitoring compliance with PM
(4) Should the EPA consider mandating through rulemaking the use of alternatives to VE techniques for monitoring compliance with PM
(5) Should the EPA's effort with regard to the use of improved monitoring techniques in lieu of VE monitoring be focused on applicable requirements established/relied upon for compliance with the PM
(6) Should the EPA consider mandating through rulemaking the use of alternatives to continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS) for monitoring compliance with PM
(7) In its study published in 2003, the EPA identified stationary source emission reduction techniques that air agencies should consider when developing their potential list of control measures for a PM
(8) Please submit any examples of improved stationary source emissions monitoring, including a description of the measure, monitoring data, etc.
(9) Please submit any other methodologies—complete with equations and explanations—for estimating emissions reductions due to improved monitoring.
The EPA will continue to explore and implement innovative, cost-effective ideas that offer tangible incentives for improved source monitoring to be adopted as part of the associated emissions limitations that will help achieve additional reductions from stationary sources and bring areas into attainment for the PM
As discussed in Section II of this preamble, direct PM
The following discussion focuses on current test methods for quantifying condensable PM
Since January 1, 2011, the EPA has required that states take into consideration condensable PM
In the preamble to the 2007 PM
The EPA proposes to require that, where a state needs to adopt control measures for direct PM
The EPA seeks comment on this proposed requirement for states to quantify condensable PM
If the 1997 primary annual PM
The EPA believes that it is more important and consistent with CAA requirements to determine conformity for the new 2012 primary annual PM
The proposed options are framed in the context of the CAA requirements that apply to NAAQS transitions to ensure that states and nonattainment areas continue to make progress and do not reverse progress, or backslide, from improvements already made in air quality. The CAA contains several provisions indicating congressional intent not to allow a state to alter or remove provisions from an approved attainment plan if the revision would reduce air quality protection. Section 193 of the CAA prohibits modification of a control requirement in effect or required to be adopted as of November 15, 1990 (the date of enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments), unless such a modification would ensure equivalent or greater emissions reductions. Section 172(e), which addresses relaxations of a NAAQS, requires protections for areas that have not attained a NAAQS prior to a relaxation by requiring controls which are at least as stringent as the controls applicable in nonattainment areas prior to any such relaxation. Section 110(l) provides that a SIP revision cannot be approved if it will interfere with attainment or other CAA requirements. Under section 175A(d), an area that is redesignated to attainment may, with an appropriate showing of no interference, cease to implement a measure that is contained in the SIP at the time of redesignation, but only if that measure is retained as a contingency measure in the area's maintenance plan.
The transition from the 1997 to the 2012 primary annual PM
The EPA has either adopted or has proposed to adopt transition policies for other NAAQS, including the policies for the transitions from:
• The 1-hour ozone NAAQS to the 1997 ozone NAAQS;
• The 1997 ozone NAAQS to the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
• The prior lead NAAQS to the 2008 lead NAAQS; and,
• The prior sulfur dioxide (SO
It is important to note that for all previous NAAQS transitions, the EPA has used revocation to reduce the burden associated with implementing a NAAQS that has been replaced with a more stringent NAAQS.
In its Phase 1 Rule for the transition from the 1-hour ozone NAAQS to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the EPA stated that the 1-hour ozone NAAQS would be revoked (
The Phase 1 Rule for implementation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS was the subject of legal challenges, and the resulting court decision in
As part of its final SIP requirements rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA included requirements for the transition from the 1997 ozone NAAQS to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
It should be noted that as part of the transition from the 1997 ozone NAAQS to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS for transportation conformity purposes only in a separate action related to classifications for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that was finalized prior to the time that the full implementation rule had been proposed.
Following promulgation of the 2008 lead NAAQS and 2010 SO
In developing the options for revoking the 1997 primary annual PM
The EPA is proposing and seeking comment on two options for revoking the 1997 primary annual PM
After revocation of the 1997 primary annual PM
For any proposed option that allows for revocation in nonattainment areas for the 1997 primary annual PM
•
•
More details on the proposed options and associated rationale are included below.
The EPA's first proposed option would revoke the 1997 primary annual PM
Areas that are designated nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM
The EPA notes that under proposed Option 1 it is unnecessary to propose anti-backsliding requirements for the 1997 primary annual PM
For areas that were initially designated as attainment for both the 1997 and 2012 annual PM
The EPA also notes that areas designated nonattainment for the 2012 primary annual PM
In general, Option 1 builds upon the EPA's practice in the transition from the 1-hour to the 1997 ozone NAAQS in that areas will not only be able to be redesignated to attainment up to the date of the initial revocation, but any remaining nonattainment areas will be able to be redesignated after the initial revocations occur 1 year after the effective date of designations.
Under this second proposed option, the EPA would revoke the 1997 primary annual PM
• For areas designated
• For these same areas (
The EPA notes that Option 2 for 2012 attainment/1997 nonattainment would
Lastly, the EPA requests comment on the possible approach of not revoking the 1997 primary annual PM
The EPA again notes that if this approach were finalized it would be the first time that the EPA has not taken some action to reduce the burden associated with implementing a NAAQS that has been replaced with a more stringent NAAQS.
Until the 1997 primary annual PM
Under Option 1, the 1997 primary annual PM
It should also be noted that, for either proposed option, after the effective date of any revocation of the 1997 primary annual PM
As explained previously, for areas redesignated to attainment under Options 1 and 2, the section 175A maintenance plan for the 1997 primary annual PM
For Option 2, the EPA is applying a general principle to apply transition requirements depending on how the area is designated—attainment or nonattainment—for the 2012 primary annual PM
Under Option 2, the EPA is proposing as one alternative that areas designated attainment for the 2012 primary annual PM
Under Option 2, the EPA is also proposing, for areas that are attainment for the 2012 primary annual PM
The revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the associated anti-backsliding provisions were the subject of past litigation. In its December 2006 decision on that challenge, as modified following rehearing, the Court held with respect to the anti-backsliding approach for conformity that 1-hour ozone motor vehicle emissions budgets must be used in transportation conformity determinations for the more protective 1997 ozone NAAQS where such SIP motor vehicle emissions budgets have been found adequate or approved, until SIP motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 1997 ozone NAAQS are available.
With regard to general conformity, the D.C. Circuit Court did not address the need for specific anti-backsliding measures in its initial decision or in the modified decision on the
Areas that are attaining the more health protective 2012 primary annual PM
Areas designated nonattainment for the 2012 primary annual PM
The EPA seeks comment on the options proposed in the preceding discussion regarding revoking the 1997 primary annual PM
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations because it would not negatively affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment under the PM
This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review because it raises novel policy issues. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket.
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by the EPA has been assigned the EPA ICR number 2258.03, OMB Control No. 2060-0611. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
The EPA is proposing this PM
For purposes of analysis of the estimated paperwork burden, the EPA assumed there were 21 existing nonattainment areas for the 1997 and 2006 PM
The annual state burden for this information collection for the 15 hypothetical newly designated 2012 PM
The annual state burden for this information collection for the 21 existing nonattainment areas for the 1997 and 2006 PM
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any regulation subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined in the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule will not impose any requirements directly on small entities. Entities potentially affected directly by this proposal include state, local and tribal governments and none of these governments are small governments. Other types of small entities are not directly subject to the requirements of this rule. The EPA 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 any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. The CAA imposes the obligation for states to submit attainment plans to implement the PM
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The requirement to submit attainment plans to meet a PM
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with the EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits comments on this proposed action from state and local officials. In addition, the EPA intends to meet with organizations representing state and local officials during the comment period for this action.
This proposed action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes. Furthermore, these proposed regulation revisions do not affect the relationship or distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. The CAA and the TAR establish the relationship of the federal government and tribes in characterizing air quality and developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and these revisions to the regulations do nothing to modify that
Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action, the EPA solicits comment on this proposed action from tribal officials. The EPA also intends to offer to consult with any tribal government to discuss this proposal.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it implements a previously promulgated health or safety-based federal standard established pursuant to the CAA.
These proposed regulatory provisions are designed to help implement the current and future PM
This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have 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 XI of this preamble.
Pursuant to sections 307(d)(1)(E) and 307(d)(1)(V) of the CAA, the Administrator proposes to determine that this action is subject to the provisions of section 307(d). Under section 307(d)(1)(V), the provisions of section 307(d) apply to “such other actions as the Administrator may determine.”
The statutory authority for this action is provided by 42 U.S.C. 7403, 7407, 7410, and 7601.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, Title 40, Chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401,
(d) The standards set forth in this section will remain applicable to all areas notwithstanding the promulgation of the 2012 primary annual PM
23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv)(A) * * *
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(x)(A)
(xxxvii) * * *
(C) * * *
(
(2)
(ii) * * *
(A) Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (iv) of this section, and consistent with the definition of major modification contained in paragraph (a)(1)(v)(A) of this section, a project is a major modification for a regulated NSR pollutant (as defined in paragraph (a)(1)(xxxvii) of this section), if it causes two types of emissions increases—a significant emissions increase (as defined in paragraph (a)(1)(xxvii) of this section), and a significant net emissions increase (as defined in paragraphs (a)(1)(vi) and (x) of this section). The project is not a major modification if it does not cause a significant emissions increase. If the project causes a significant emissions increase, then the project is a major modification only if it also results in a significant net emissions increase.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
II. * * *
A. * * *
4. (i) * * *
(
(
10. (i)
31. * * *
(ii) * * *
(
(
The following definitions apply for purposes of this subpart. Any term not defined herein shall have the meaning as defined in 40 CFR 51.100 or Clean Air Act section 302.
The provisions in subparts A through X of this part apply to areas for purposes of the PM
(a)
(b)
(1) The EPA shall reclassify as Serious through notice-and-comment rulemaking any Moderate PM
(2) A Moderate PM
(a) Nonattainment areas initially classified as Moderate.
(1) For any area designated as nonattainment and initially classified as Moderate for a PM
(i) Emissions inventory requirements set forth at § 51.1008(a)(1);
(ii) Emissions inventory requirements set forth at § 51.1008(a)(2);
(iii) Moderate area attainment plan control strategy requirements set forth at § 51.1009;
(iv) Attainment demonstration and modeling requirements set forth at § 51.1011;
(v) Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) requirements set forth at § 51.1012;
(vi) Quantitative milestone requirements set forth at § 51.1013;
(vii) Contingency measure requirements set forth at § 51.1014; and,
(viii) Nonattainment new source review plan requirements pursuant to section 189(a)(1)(A) and section 172(c)(5) of the CAA.
(2) The state(s) shall submit its Moderate area attainment plan to EPA no later than 18 months from the date of designation of the area.
(b) Nonattainment areas reclassified to Serious.
(1) For any nonattainment area reclassified to Serious for a PM
(i) Emissions inventory requirements set forth at § 51.1008(b)(1);
(ii) Emissions inventory requirements set forth at § 51.1008(b)(2);
(iii) Serious area attainment plan control strategy requirements set forth at § 51.1010;
(iv) Attainment demonstration and modeling requirements set forth at § 51.1011;
(v) Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) requirements set forth at § 51.1012;
(vi) Quantitative milestone requirements set forth at § 51.1013;
(vii) Contingency measure requirements set forth at § 51.1014; and,
(viii) Nonattainment new source review plan requirements pursuant to section 189(b)(3) and section 172(c)(5) of the CAA.
(2) The state(s) shall submit its Serious area attainment plan to EPA according to the following schedule:
(i) For any nonattainment area reclassified to Serious for a particular PM
(ii) For any nonattainment area reclassified to Serious for a particular PM
(iii) If the state(s) submits to EPA a request for a Serious area attainment date extension simultaneous with the Serious area attainment plan due under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, such a plan shall meet the most stringent measure (MSM) requirements set forth at § 51.1010(b) in addition to the BACM and BACT and additional feasible measure requirements set forth at § 51.1010(a).
(c) Serious nonattainment areas subject to CAA section 189(d) for failing to attain the PM
(1) For any Serious nonattainment area that fails to attain a particular PM
(i) Emissions inventory requirements set forth at § 51.1008(c)(1);
(ii) Emissions inventory requirements set forth at § 51.1008(c)(2);
(iii) Demonstration of attainment and modeling requirements set forth at § 51.1011;
(iv) Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) requirements set forth at § 51.1012;
(v) Quantitative milestone requirements set forth at § 51.1013; and,
(vi) Contingency measure requirements set forth at § 51.1014.
(2) The state(s) shall submit to EPA the revised attainment plan meeting the requirements set forth at paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section no later than 12 months from the missed applicable Serious area attainment date.
(d) Any attainment plan submitted to EPA under this section shall establish motor vehicle emissions budgets for the projected attainment year for the area, if applicable. The state shall develop such budgets according to the requirements of the transportation conformity rule as they apply to PM
(a) The state shall submit a projected attainment date as part of its attainment plan submission under § 51.1003 for any PM
(1) Nonattainment areas initially classified as Moderate.
(i) Except for nonattainment areas that meet the criterion under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, the projected attainment date for a Moderate PM
(ii) The projected attainment date for a Moderate PM
(2) Nonattainment areas reclassified to Serious.
(i) Except for nonattainment areas that meet the criterion under paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, the projected attainment date for a Serious PM
(i) Except for nonattainment areas that meet the criterion under paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, the projected attainment date for a Serious PM
(ii) A state that submits an attainment plan that demonstrates that a Serious PM
(3) Serious nonattainment areas subject to CAA section 189(d) for failing to attain by the applicable Serious area attainment date. The projected attainment date for a Serious PM
(b) Except for attainment plans that meet the conditions of paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) or (a)(3) of this section, the Administrator shall approve an attainment date at the same time and in the same manner in which the Administrator approves the attainment plan for the area.
(1) In accordance with paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, if a state demonstrates that a Moderate PM
(2) In accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if a Serious PM
(a) Nonattainment areas initially classified as Moderate.
(1) A state with a Moderate PM
(i) The state has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation plan;
(ii) For an area designated nonattainment for a particular 24-hour PM
(iii) For an area designated nonattainment for a particular annual PM
(2) The applicable implementation plan for a Moderate PM
(3) For a Moderate PM
(4) A state with a Moderate area that received an initial 1-year attainment date extension may apply for a second 1-year attainment date extension for the area if the state meets the conditions described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section in the year preceding the approved attainment date.
(b) Nonattainment areas reclassified as Serious.
(1) A state may apply for one attainment date extension not to exceed 5 years for a Serious nonattainment area if the following conditions are met:
(i) The state demonstrates that attainment of the applicable PM
(ii) The state has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation plan; and,
(iii) The state demonstrates that the attainment plan for the area includes the most stringent measures (MSM) that are included in the attainment plan of any state or are achieved in practice in any state, and can feasibly be implemented in the area consistent with § 51.1010(b).
(2) At the time of application for an attainment date extension, the state shall submit to EPA a Serious area attainment plan that meets the following requirements:
(i) Emissions inventory requirements set forth at § 51.1008(b);
(ii) Most stringent measures (MSM) requirement described under paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section and § 51.1010(b);
(iii) Attainment demonstration and modeling requirements set forth at § 51.1011 that justify the state's conclusion under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section;
(iv) Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) requirements set forth at § 51.1012;
(v) Quantitative milestone requirements set forth at § 51.1013; and,
(vi) Contingency measure requirements set forth at § 51.1014.
(3) The applicable implementation plan for a Serious PM
(4) The applicable implementation plan for a Serious PM
(5) A state applying for an attainment date extension for a Serious nonattainment area under § 51.1004(a)(2)(ii) shall submit to EPA a request for an extension at the same time as it submits the Serious area attainment plan due under § 51.1003(b)(1).
(6) A state applying for an attainment date extension for a Serious nonattainment area subsequent to submitting an initial Serious area attainment plan that demonstrated
(c) Serious nonattainment areas subject to CAA section 189(d) for failing to attain by the applicable Serious area attainment date. If a Serious area fails to attain a particular PM
(d) For any attainment date extension request submitted pursuant to this section, the requesting state (or states) shall submit a written request and evidence of compliance with these regulations which includes both of the following:
(i) Evidence that all control measures submitted in the applicable attainment plan have been implemented, and
(ii) Evidence that the area has made emission reduction progress that represents reasonable further progress toward timely attainment of the applicable PM
(e) For a PM
(a) For purposes of determining that a particular PM
(b) The state shall submit results and supporting documentation for any technical analyses conducted pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section as part of any attainment plan for the area.
(a) All categories of sources of direct PM
(b) The state shall define source categories for stationary sources classified under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) at the level represented by four (4) digits or fewer.
(c) The state shall define a single source category for on-road mobile sources, including on-road vehicles and engines, and a single source category for nonroad mobile sources, including nonroad engines, equipment, and vehicles, or may define a single source category for all mobile sources in the aggregate.
(a) For any nonattainment area initially classified as Moderate, the state shall submit to EPA all of the following:
(1) A base year inventory for the nonattainment area for all emissions sources that meets the following minimum criteria:
(i) The inventory year shall be one of the 3 years used for designations or another technically appropriate inventory year if justified by the state in the plan submission.
(ii) The inventory shall include actual emissions of all sources within the nonattainment area.
(iii) The emissions values shall be either annual total emissions or average-season-day emissions. The state shall include as part of the plan a rationale for providing annual or seasonal emissions.
(iv) The inventory shall include direct PM
(v) The state shall report emissions as point sources according to the point source emissions thresholds of the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR), 40 CFR part 51, subpart A.
(vi) The detail of the emissions inventory shall be consistent with the data elements required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A.
(2) An attainment projected inventory for the nonattainment area that meets the following minimum criteria:
(i) The year of the projected inventory shall be the most expeditious year for which attainment is demonstrated by the modeled attainment plan.
(ii) The emissions values shall be projected emissions of the same sources included in the base year inventory for the nonattainment area (
(iii) The temporal period of emissions shall be the same temporal period (annual or average-season-day) as the base year inventory for the nonattainment area.
(iv) Consistent with the base year inventory for the nonattainment area, the inventory shall include direct PM
(v) The same sources reported as point sources in the base year inventory for the nonattainment area shall be provided as point sources in the attainment projected inventory for the nonattainment area. Nonpoint and mobile source projected emissions shall be provided using the same detail (
(vi) The same detail of the emissions included shall be consistent with the level of detail in the base year inventory (
(b) For any nonattainment area reclassified as Serious, the state shall submit to EPA all of the following:
(1) For purposes of meeting the emissions inventory requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3), a base year inventory for the nonattainment area for all emissions sources that meets the requirements listed under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and in addition, uses the Serious area definition of a major source listed under § 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(vii) and (viii) in determining sources to include as point sources.
(2) An attainment projected inventory for the nonattainment area that meets the criteria listed under paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(c) Serious nonattainment areas subject to CAA section 189(d) for failing to attain a PM
(1) For purposes of meeting the emissions inventory requirements of
(2) An attainment projected inventory for the nonattainment area as defined by § 51.1000(e) and that meets the criteria listed under paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(a) The state shall identify, adopt, and implement control measures, including control technologies, on sources of direct PM
(1) The state shall identify all sources of direct PM
(2) The state shall identify all potential control measures to reduce emissions from all sources of direct PM
(i) The state may elect not to identify potential control measures to reduce emissions from any sources of a particular PM
(ii) The state may elect not to identify potential control measures to reduce emissions from sources in any source category of direct PM
(3) For any potential control measure identified under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the state may make a demonstration that such measure is not technologically or economically feasible to implement in whole or in part by the end of the sixth calendar year following the date of designation of the area, and the state may eliminate such whole or partial measure from further consideration under this paragraph.
(i) For purposes of evaluating the technological feasibility of a potential control measure, the state may consider factors including but not limited to a source's processes and operating procedures, raw materials, physical plant layout, and potential environmental impacts such as increased water pollution, waste disposal, and energy requirements.
(ii) For purposes of evaluating the economic feasibility of a potential control measure, the state may consider factors including but not limited to capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, and cost effectiveness of the measure.
(iii) The state must submit to EPA as part of its Moderate area attainment plan a detailed written justification for eliminating from further consideration any potential control measure identified under paragraph (a)(2) of this section on the basis of technological or economic infeasibility.
(4) The state shall use air quality modeling that meets the requirements of § 51.1011(a) and that accounts for emissions reductions estimated due to all technologically and economically feasible control measures identified for sources of direct PM
(i) If the state demonstrates through air quality modeling that the area can attain the applicable PM
(A) Any control measure identified for adoption and implementation under this paragraph that can be implemented in whole or in part by 4 years after the date of designation of the Moderate PM
(B) Any control measure identified for adoption and implementation under this paragraph that can only be implemented in whole or in part during the period beginning 4 years after the date of designation of the Moderate PM
(ii) If the state demonstrates through air quality modeling that the area cannot practicably attain the applicable PM
(A) Any control measure identified for adoption and implementation under this paragraph that can be implemented in whole or in part by 4 years after the date of designation of the Moderate PM
(B) Any control measure identified for adoption and implementation under this paragraph that can only be implemented in whole or in part during the period beginning 4 years after the date of designation of the Moderate PM
(b) The state shall identify, adopt, and implement control measures, including control technologies, on sources of direct PM
(c) For control measures on sources of direct PM
(a) The state shall identify, adopt, and implement control measures, including control technologies, on sources of direct PM
(1) The state shall identify all sources of direct PM
(2) The state shall identify all potential control measures to reduce emissions from all sources of direct PM
(i) The state shall survey other NAAQS nonattainment areas in the U.S. and identify any measures not previously identified by the state during the development of the Moderate area attainment plan for the area.
(ii) The state may elect not to identify potential control measures to reduce emissions from any sources of a particular PM
(iii) The state may elect not to identify potential control measures to reduce emissions from sources in any source category of direct PM
(3) The state may make a demonstration that any measure identified under paragraph (a)(2) of this section is not technologically or economically feasible to implement in whole or in part by the end of the tenth calendar year following the date of designation of the area, and may eliminate such whole or partial measure from further consideration under this paragraph.
(i) For purposes of evaluating the technological feasibility of a potential control measure, the state may consider factors including but not limited to a source's processes and operating procedures, raw materials, physical plant layout, and potential environmental impacts such as increased water pollution, waste disposal, and energy requirements.
(ii) For purposes of evaluating the economic feasibility of a potential control measure, the state may consider capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, and cost effectiveness of the measure.
(iii) The state shall submit to EPA as part of its Serious area attainment plan submission a detailed written justification for eliminating from further consideration any potential control measure identified under paragraph (a)(2) of this section on the basis of technological or economic infeasibility. The state shall provide as part of its written justification an explanation of how its criteria for determining the technological and economic feasibility of potential control measures under paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section are more stringent than its criteria for determining the technological and economic feasibility of potential control measures under § 51.1009(a)(3)(i) and (ii) for the same sources in the PM
(4) Except as provided under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the state shall adopt and implement all potential control measures identified under paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(i) Any control measure that can be implemented in whole or in part by the end of the fourth year following the date of reclassification of the area to Serious shall be considered a best available control measure for the area. Any such control measure that is also a control technology for a stationary source in the area shall be considered a best available control technology for the area.
(ii) Any control measure that can be implemented in whole or in part between the end of the fourth year following the date of reclassification of the area to Serious and the applicable attainment date for the area shall be considered an additional feasible measure.
(5) The state shall use air quality modeling that meets the requirements of § 51.1011(b) and that accounts for emissions reductions estimated due to all best available control measures, including best available control technologies, and additional feasible measures identified for sources of direct PM
(a) The state shall identify, adopt, and implement control measures, including control technologies, on sources of direct PM
(1) The state shall identify all sources of direct PM
(2) The state shall identify all potential control measures to reduce emissions from all sources of direct PM
(i) The state shall survey other NAAQS nonattainment areas in the U.S. and identify any measures not previously identified by the state during the development of the Moderate area attainment plan for the area.
(ii) The state may elect not to identify potential control measures to reduce emissions from any sources of a particular PM
(3) The state may make a demonstration that a measure identified under paragraph (a)(2) of this section is not technologically or economically feasible to implement in whole or in part by the end of the tenth calendar year following the date of designation of the area, and may eliminate such whole or partial measure from further consideration under this paragraph.
(i) For purposes of evaluating the technological feasibility of a potential control measure, the state may consider factors including but not limited to a source's processes and operating procedures, raw materials, physical plant layout, and potential environmental impacts such as increased water pollution, waste disposal, and energy requirements.
(ii) For purposes of evaluating the economic feasibility of a potential control measure, the state may consider
(iii) The state shall submit to EPA as part of its Serious area attainment plan submission a detailed written justification for eliminating from further consideration any potential control measure identified under paragraph (a)(2) of this section on the basis of technological or economic infeasibility. The state shall provide as part of its written justification an explanation of how its criteria for determining the technological and economic feasibility of potential control measures under paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section are more stringent than its criteria for determining the technological and economic feasibility of potential control measures under § 51.1009(a)(3)(i) and (ii) for the same sources in the PM
(4) The state shall use air quality modeling that meets the requirements of § 51.1011(b) and that accounts for emissions reductions estimated due to all technologically and economically feasible control measures identified for sources of direct PM
(5) For a Serious PM
(i) Any control measure that can be implemented in whole or in part by the end of the fourth year following the date of reclassification of the area to Serious shall be considered a best available control measure for the area. Any such control measure that is also a control technology for a stationary source in the area shall be considered a best available control technology for the area.
(ii) Any control measure that can only be implemented in whole or in part between the end of the fourth year following the date of reclassification of the area to Serious and the applicable attainment date for the area shall be considered an additional feasible measure.]
(b) For a Serious PM
(1) The state shall identify all sources of direct PM
(2) The state shall identify all potential control measures to reduce emissions from all sources of direct PM
(i) The state shall survey other NAAQS nonattainment areas in the U.S. and identify the most stringent measures adopted into any SIP for any NAAQS or used in practice to control emissions from any non-
(ii) The state shall reanalyze any measures previously rejected by the state during the development of any Moderate area or Serious area attainment plan control strategy for the area, unless the extension request is made at the same time as the Serious area attainment plan required after the area is reclassified in accordance with § 51.1005(b)(5).
(3) The state may make a demonstration that a measure identified under paragraph (b)(2) of this section is not technologically or economically feasible to implement in whole or in part by 5 years after the applicable attainment date for the area, and may eliminate such whole or partial measure from further consideration under this paragraph.
(i) For purposes of evaluating the technological feasibility of a potential control measure, the state may consider factors including but not limited to a source's processes and operating procedures, raw materials, physical plant layout, and potential environmental impacts such as increased water pollution, waste disposal, and energy requirements.
(ii) For purposes of evaluating the economic feasibility of a potential control measure, the state may consider capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, and cost effectiveness of the measure.
(iii) The state shall submit to EPA as part of its Serious area attainment plan submission a detailed written justification for eliminating from further consideration any potential control measure identified under paragraph (b)(2) of this section on the basis of technological or economic infeasibility. The state shall provide as part of its written justification an explanation of how its criteria for determining the technological and economic feasibility of potential control measures under paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section are more stringent than its criteria for determining the technological and economic feasibility of potential control measures under paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section and under § 51.1009(a)(3)(i) and (ii) for the same sources in the PM
(4) Except as provided under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the state shall adopt and implement all control measures identified under paragraph (b)(2) of this section that may achieve greater emissions reductions from any non-
(c) The state shall identify, adopt, and implement control measures, including control technologies, on sources of direct PM
(d) For control measures on sources of direct PM
(a)
(1) The attainment demonstration shall show the projected attainment date for the Moderate nonattainment area that is as expeditious as practicable in accordance with the requirements of § 51.1004(a)(1).
(2) The attainment demonstration shall meet the requirements of Appendix W of this part and shall include inventory data, modeling results, and emission reduction analyses on which the state has based its projected attainment date.
(3) The base year for the emissions inventory required for an attainment demonstration under this paragraph shall be one of the 3 years used for designations or another technically appropriate inventory year if justified by the state in the plan submission.
(4) The control strategies modeled as part of the attainment demonstration shall be consistent with the following as applicable:
(i) For a Moderate area that can demonstrate attainment of the applicable PM
(ii) For a Moderate area that cannot practicably attain the applicable PM
(5) The attainment demonstration and supporting air quality modeling should be consistent with the most current version of EPA's PM
(6) Required time frame for obtaining emissions reductions. For each Moderate nonattainment area, the attainment plan must provide for implementation of all control measures needed for attainment as expeditiously as practicable. All control measures in the attainment demonstration must be implemented no later than the beginning of the year prior to the attainment date, notwithstanding RACM implementation deadline requirements in § 51.1009.
(b)
(1) The attainment demonstration shall show the projected attainment date for the Serious nonattainment area that is as expeditious as practicable in accordance with the requirements of § 51.1004(a)(2).
(2) The attainment demonstration shall meet the requirements of Appendix W of this part and shall include inventory data, modeling results, and emission reduction analyses on which the state has based its projected attainment date.
(3) The base year for the emissions inventories required for attainment demonstrations under this paragraph shall be one of the 3 years used for designations or another technically appropriate inventory year if justified by the state in the plan submission.
(4) The control strategies modeled as part of the attainment demonstration shall be consistent with the following as applicable:
(i) For a Serious area that can demonstrate attainment of the applicable PM
(ii) For a Serious area that cannot practicably attain the applicable PM
(5) The attainment demonstration and supporting air quality modeling should be consistent with the most current version of EPA's PM
(6) Required timeframe for obtaining emissions reductions. For each Serious nonattainment area, the attainment plan must provide for implementation of all control measures needed for attainment as expeditiously as practicable. All control measures must be implemented no later than the beginning of the year prior to the attainment date, notwithstanding BACM implementation deadline requirements in § 51.1010.
(a) Consistent with CAA section 172(c)(2), the state shall submit in each attainment plan for a PM
(1) A description of each control measure adopted by the state to satisfy the control strategy requirements of § 51.1009 (for Moderate area attainment plans) or § 51.1010 (for Serious area attainment plans), as appropriate, and the projected reductions in direct PM
(2) A schedule for implementing the measures described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(3) An analysis that demonstrates that by the end of the calendar year for each milestone date for the area determined in accordance with § 51.1013(a), emissions will be at a level that reflects generally linear progress in reducing emissions on an annual basis between the base year and the attainment year.
(b) Except as provided under paragraph (c) of this section, the RFP analysis required under paragraph (a)(3) of this section shall include, at a minimum, a benchmark RFP analysis, and may include an alternative RFP analysis, consistent with the following:
(1) The base year for the RFP emissions inventory shall be one of the 3 years used for designations or another technically appropriate inventory year if justified by the state in the plan submission.
(2) In the benchmark RFP analysis, the state must identify direct PM
(i) For direct PM
(ii) The “milestone date fraction” is the ratio of the number of years from the base year to the milestone year divided by the number of years from the baseline year to the full implementation year.
(iii) For direct PM
(iv) The benchmark emission level in the milestone year is calculated for direct PM
(v) In comparing inventories between the base year and future years for direct PM
(vi) For purposes of establishing motor vehicle emissions budgets for transportation conformity purposes (as required in 40 CFR part 93) for a PM
(3) The RFP analysis must demonstrate that emissions for the milestone year are either:
(i) At levels that are roughly equivalent to the benchmark emission levels for direct PM
(ii) At levels included in an alternative RFP analysis that projects generally equivalent improvement in air quality by the milestone year as would be achieved under the benchmark RFP plan.
(iii) The equivalence of an alternative RFP analysis to the corresponding benchmark analysis must be determined by comparing the expected air quality changes from the two analyses at the design value monitor location. This comparison must use the information developed for the attainment plan to assess the relationship between emissions reductions of the direct PM
(c) For an attainment plan submittal that demonstrates that a Moderate PM
(d) For a multi-state or multi-jurisdictional nonattainment area, the RFP plans for each state represented in the nonattainment area shall demonstrate RFP on the basis of common multi-state inventories. The states or jurisdictions within which the area is located must provide a coordinated RFP plan. Each state in a multi-state nonattainment area must ensure that the sources within its boundaries comply with enforceable emission levels and other requirements that in combination with the reductions planned in other state(s) within the nonattainment area will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable and demonstrate RFP consistent with these regulations.
(a) Consistent with CAA section 189(c)(1), the state must submit in each attainment plan for a PM
(1) Nonattainment areas initially classified as Moderate.
(i) For an attainment plan submittal that demonstrates that a Moderate PM
(ii) For an attainment plan submittal that demonstrates that a Moderate PM
(iii) The state shall select quantitative milestones that coincide with the milestone due dates specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, as applicable, and that provide for objective evaluation of emissions reductions and/or air quality improvements representing progress toward attainment of the applicable PM
(2) Nonattainment areas reclassified to Serious.
(i) For an attainment plan submittal that demonstrates that a Serious PM
(ii) For an attainment plan submittal that demonstrates that a Serious PM
(iii) The state shall select quantitative milestones that coincide with the milestone due dates specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, as applicable, and that provide for objective evaluation of emissions reductions and/or air quality improvements representing progress toward attainment of the applicable PM
(3) Serious areas that fail to attain by the applicable Serious area attainment date. For an attainment plan submittal for a Serious area that failed to attain a particular PM
(b) Not later than 90 days after the date on which a milestone applicable to a PM
(1) A certification by the Governor or Governor's designee that the state's attainment plan control strategy, including the RFP plan, is being implemented as described in the applicable attainment plan;
(2) A technical demonstration, including calculations, to document completion statistics for appropriate milestones and to demonstrate that the quantitative milestones have been satisfied and how the emission reductions achieved to date compare to those required or scheduled to meet RFP;
(3) An air quality screening analysis to determine if measured air quality progress is consistent with the expected air quality improvement target correlated with the RFP emissions reductions for the previous 3-year period calculated in accordance with § 51.1012;
(4) An evaluation of whether the area will attain the applicable PM
(5) A description and schedule for any remedial actions the state has taken or will take to address any failure to meet a quantitative milestone, including the implementation status of contingency measures required under § 51.1014(a)(1)(i) for failing to meet RFP.
(c) In the event a state fails to submit a milestone report that meets the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section by the due date or the Administrator determines that the state failed to meet a milestone by the milestone date, the state shall submit an attainment plan revision within 9 months of the missed due date or the Administrator's determination of the state's failure to meet a milestone that assures that the state will achieve the next milestone or attain the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date, whichever is earlier.
(a) The state must include as part of each attainment plan submitted under this subpart for a PM
(1) The area failed to meet the RFP requirements of § 51.1012 or to submit a milestone report due to EPA in accordance with § 51.1013(b); or,
(2) The area failed to attain the applicable PM
(b) The contingency measures adopted as part of a PM
(1) The contingency measures shall consist of control measures that are not otherwise included in the control strategy for the area.
(2) The contingency measures shall provide for emissions reductions approximately equivalent to 1 year's worth of reductions needed for RFP, based on the overall level of reductions needed to demonstrate attainment divided by the number of years from the base year to the attainment year, or approximately equivalent to 1 year's worth of air quality improvement or emissions reductions proportional to the overall amount of air quality improvement or emissions reductions to be achieved by the area's attainment plan.
(c) The attainment plan submission shall contain a description of the specific trigger mechanisms for the contingency measures and specify a schedule for implementation.
(a)
(1) The area is redesignated to attainment, after which such requirements are permanently discharged; or,
(2) EPA determines that the area has re-violated the PM
(b)
(1) The area is redesignated to attainment, after which such requirements are permanently discharged; or,
(2) EPA determines that the area has re-violated the PM
(b)
(1) The area is redesignated to attainment, after which such requirements are permanently discharged; or,
(2) EPA determines that the area has re-violated the PM
42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
(b) * * *
(1) For purposes of paragraph (b) of this section the following rates apply in nonattainment areas (NAA's):
(2) For purposes of paragraph (b) of this section the following rates apply in maintenance areas:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend the licensing, inspection, and annual fees charged to its applicants and licensees. The proposed amendments are necessary to implement the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90), as amended, which requires the NRC to recover through fees approximately 90 percent of its budget authority in Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, not including amounts appropriated for Waste Incidental to Reprocessing (WIR), the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF), generic homeland security activities, and Inspector General (IG) services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB). These fees represent the cost of the NRC's services provided to applicants and licensees.
Submit comments by April 22, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this date. Because OBRA-90, as amended, requires that the NRC collect the FY 2015 fees by September 30, 2015, the NRC will not grant any requests for an extension of the comment period.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Arlette Howard, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-1481, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0200 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0200 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
Over the past 40 years the NRC (and earlier, as the Atomic Energy Commission, the NRC's predecessor agency) has assessed and continues to assess fees to applicants and licensees to recover the cost of its regulatory program. The NRC's cost recovery principles for fee regulation are governed by two major laws: (1) The Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 (IOAA) (31 U.S.C. 483 (a)); and (2) OBRA-90 (42 U.S.C. 2214), as amended. The NRC is required each year, under OBRA-90, as amended, to recover approximately 90 percent of its budget authority, not including amounts appropriated for WIR, amounts appropriated for generic homeland security activities, and IG services for the DNFSB, through fees to the NRC licensees and applicants.
In addition to the requirements of OBRA-90, as amended, the NRC is also
For FY 2015, the NRC staff performed a biennial review using the same fee methodology developed in FY 2009 that applies a fixed percentage of 39 percent to the prior 2-year weighted average of materials users' fees. This methodology disproportionately impacted NRC's small licensees fees by increasing fees by an approximate 43 percent on average compared to other materials licensees not eligible for small entity fee status whose fees increased by 38 percent or less for FY 2015; therefore, the NRC staff limited the increase to 21 percent based on historical applications of the fee methodology. Consequently, the change resulted in a fee of $3,400 for an upper-tier small entity and $700 for a lower-tier small entity for FY 2015. The NRC staff believes these fees are reasonable and provide relief to small entities while at the same time recovering from those licensees some of the NRC's costs for activities that benefit them. The next biennial review will be conducted in FY 2017.
Additionally, this proposed rule is based on the NRC's FY 2015 Congressional Budget Justification figures with adjustments made for the current estimate. In order to ensure timely publication of this rule, adjustments have not been made for the appropriation received on December 16, 2014. All figures in the final rule will be updated based on the NRC's appropriation (an estimate has been included in this proposed rule). Because the enacted appropriation is less than the President's budget, the final rule will reflect that, overall, the NRC will collect a lower amount of fees than is reflected in this proposed rule.
In compliance with OBRA-90, as amended, and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), the NRC proposes to amend its fee schedules for parts 170 and 171 of Title 10 of the
In order to allow sufficient time for the NRC to issue the FY 2015 final fee rule during FY 2015, as required by OBRA-90, the NRC is issuing the proposed fee rule based on the President's budget. The FY 2015 final fee rule will be based on the enacted budget. The enacted budget represents a $44.2 million reduction from the President's budget, which will reduce the hourly rate and the amount of annual fees the NRC is required to collect.
The FY 2015 proposed fee rule is based on the President's budget request of $1,059.5 million, modified to reflect comparability adjustments and reallocation of resources. Comparability adjustments are shifts of the same work and the associated resources within or between programs, business, or product lines. Reallocation of resources occurs when resources are used differently than originally budgeted, for reasons such as changes in agency priorities or workload changes. For example, FY 2015 resources decreased in the New Reactors and Fuel Facilities Business Lines due to projected workload decreases, while resources allocated to the Operating Reactors Business Line increased to support efforts to reduce the inventory of pending licensing actions. The 2015 proposed fee rule is based on the anticipated distribution of funds for agency needs at the time of its development. The final rule will be adjusted to reflect the NRC's FY 2015 reduced appropriation of $1,015.3 million.
Table 1.1 contains a sample of the anticipated impact of this calculation. Based on OBRA-90, as amended, the NRC is required to recover $935.3 million through 10 CFR part 170 licensing and inspections fees and 10 CFR part 171 annual fees for the FY 2015 proposed fee rule. This amount excludes non-fee items for WIR activities totaling $1.4 million, IG services for the DNFSB totaling $0.9 million, and generic homeland security activities totaling $18.1 million. The required fee recovery amount is $4.5 million more than the amount recovered in FY 2014, an increase of 0.5 percent. After accounting for billing adjustments, this amount is decreased by $9.0 million as a result of net billing adjustments (sum of unpaid current year invoices (estimated) minus payments for prior year invoices). This leaves approximately $926.2 million in FY 2015 to be billed as fees to licensees for 10 CFR part 170 licensing and inspection fees and 10 CFR part 171 annual fees. This amount represents an increase of $9.5 million in fees assessed to licensees over the FY 2014 final fee rule published on June 30, 2014 (79 FR 37124).
Table I summarizes the proposed budget and fee recovery amounts for the FY 2015 proposed fee rule. The FY 2014 amounts are provided for comparison purposes. (Individual values may not sum to totals due to rounding.)
The NRC's hourly rate is used in assessing full cost fees, or the total cost of services provided by the NRC, for specific services provided, as well as flat fees for certain application reviews. The NRC is proposing to decrease the current hourly rate of $279 to $277 in FY 2015 (with an estimated $268 hourly rate in the final rule). The hourly rate decrease is due to the increase in estimated direct hours worked per mission-direct FTE during the year. The hourly rate is inversely related to the mission-direct FTE rate. Thus, as the FTE rate increases, the hourly rate decreases. This rate would be applicable to all activities for which fees are assessed under §§ 170.21 and 170.31. The FY 2015 proposed hourly rate is 0.07 percent lower than the FY 2014 hourly rate of $279.
The NRC's hourly rate is derived by dividing the sum of recoverable budgeted resources for: (1) Mission-direct program salaries and benefits; (2) mission-indirect program support; and (3) agency office support and the IG, all of which are agency overhead or indirect costs by mission-direct FTE hours. The mission-direct FTE hours are the product of the mission-direct FTE multiplied by the hours per direct FTE. The only budgeted resources excluded from the hourly rate are those for contract activities related to mission-direct and fee-relief activities.
In FY 2015, the NRC used 1,420 hours per direct FTE to calculate the hourly fee rate, which is higher than the FY 2014 estimate of 1,375 hours per direct FTE and represents increased productivity. These hours exclude all indirect activities such as training and general administration. The staff used 1,420 hours in the FY 2015 budget formulation cycle (which began in March 2013). The NRC generated this figure by reviewing and analyzing the most currently available time and labor data from FY 2010 through FY 2012 to determine if the direct hours per FTE for FY 2015 budget formulation should be revised.
Table II shows the results of the hourly rate calculation methodology. The FY 2014 amounts are provided for comparison purposes. (Individual values may not sum to totals due to rounding.)
As shown in Table II, dividing the FY 2015 $891.7 million budget amount included in the hourly rate by total mission-direct FTE hours (2,267 FTE times 1,420 hours) results in an hourly rate of $277. The hourly rate is rounded to the nearest whole dollar.
The NRC is proposing to amend the current flat application fees in §§ 170.21 and 170.31 to reflect the revised hourly rate of $277. These flat fees are calculated by multiplying the average professional staff hours needed to process the licensing actions by the proposed professional hourly rate for FY 2015. The agency estimates the average professional staff hours needed to process licensing actions every other year as part of its biennial review of fees performed in compliance with the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990. The NRC performed this review as part of this FY 2015 proposed fee rulemaking. The lower hourly rate of $277 is the primary reason for the decrease in application fees.
In general, the increase in application fees is due to the increased number of hours required to perform specific activities based on the biennial review. Application fees for 11 fee categories (2.D., 3.C., 3.H., 3.M., 3.P., 3.R.2., 3.S., 4.B., 5.A., 7.A., and 7.C. under § 170.31) increase as a result of the average time to process these types of license applications. The decrease in fees for 7 fee categories (2.C., 2.E., 2.F., 3.B., 3.I., 3.N., and 3.O. under § 170.31) is due to a decrease in average time to process these types of applications. Also, the application fees increase for 3 import and export fee categories (K.4., K.5., and 15.D. under § 170.31) and decrease for 4 import and export fee categories (15.G., 15.H., 15.K., and 15.L. under § 170.31).
The amounts of the materials licensing flat fees are rounded so that the fees would be convenient to the user and the effects of rounding would be minimal. Fees under $1,000 are rounded to the nearest $10, fees that are greater than $1,000 but less than $100,000 are rounded to the nearest $100, and fees that are greater than $100,000 are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
The proposed licensing flat fees are applicable for fee categories K.1. through K.5. of § 170.21, and fee categories 1.C. through 1.D., 2.B. through 2.F., 3.A. through 3.S., 4.B. through 9.D., 10.B., 15.A. through 15.L., 15.R., and 16 of § 170.31. Applications filed on or after the effective date of the FY 2015 final fee rule would be subject to the revised fees in the final rule.
The NRC proposes to credit a total of $10.6 million to licensees' annual fees for both fee-relief activities and LLW surcharge based on their share of the fee recoverable budget authority. For this rulemaking, the NRC also proposes to establish rebaselined annual fees by changing the number of licensees in accordance with SECY-05-0164, “Annual Fee Calculation Method,” September 15, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML052580332). The rebaselining method analyzes the budget in detail and allocates the budgeted costs to various classes or subclasses of licensees. Stated otherwise, rebaselining is the annual reallocation of NRC resources based on changes in the NRC's budget. The NRC established the rebaselined methodology for calculating annual fees through notice and comment rulemaking in the FY 1999 fee rule (64 FR 31448; June 10, 1999), determining that base annual fees will be re-established (rebaselined) every third year, or more frequently if there is a substantial change in the total NRC budget or in the magnitude of the budget allocated to a specific class of licenses. The FY 2014 fee rulemaking used this same rebaselining methodology.
Moreover, the NRC would use its fee-relief surplus to decrease all licensees' annual fees, based on their percentage share of the budget. The NRC would apply the 10 percent of its budget that is excluded from fee recovery under OBRA-90, as amended (fee relief), to offset the total budget allocated for activities that do not directly benefit current NRC licensees. The budget for these fee-relief activities is totaled and then reduced by the amount of the NRC's fee relief. Any difference between the fee-relief and the budgeted amount of these activities results in a fee-relief adjustment (increase or decrease) to all licensees' annual fees, based on their percentage share of the budget, which is consistent with the existing fee methodology.
In the Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY-14-0082, “Jurisdiction for Military Radium and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oversight of U.S. Department of Defense Remediation of Radioactive Material” (ADAMS Accession No. ML14356A070), the Commission approved the staff's recommendation to finalize and implement a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) for remediation of DOD unlicensed sites containing radioactive materials subject to the NRC's regulatory authority. The MOU is slated to be finalized in FY 2015. As part of this effort, the Commission approved the establishment of a new fee relief category for the regulatory activities for the monitoring of DOD unlicensed sites under the MOU. Consistent with this direction, the NRC proposes to include a new activity under fee relief activities, within 10 CFR part 170 licensing and inspection fees or 10 CFR part 171 annual fees. These program activities capture site-specific oversight activities performed under the MOU and any ongoing non-site specific MOU-related program activities. These activities will
In comparison to FY 2014, resources for Scholarships and Fellowships decreased by $14.8 million in the FY 2015 President's budget. The $15 million requirement for University Grants will be allocated consistent with the FY 2015 appropriation in the FY 2015 final fee rule. Additionally, the budgetary resources in FY 2015 would slightly increase due to a reduction in decommissioning billings under 10 CFR part 170, which would lower the offset under decommissioning activities for total fee-relief resources.
Table III summarizes the fee-relief activities for FY 2015. The FY 2014 amounts are provided for comparison purposes. (Individual values may not sum to totals due to rounding.)
Table IV shows how the NRC would allocate the $14.6 million fee-relief assessment adjustment to each license fee class. As explained previously, the NRC would allocate this fee-relief adjustment to each license fee class based on their percentage of the budget for their fee class compared to the NRC's total budget. The fee-relief surplus adjustment is subtracted from the required annual fee recovery for each fee class.
Separately, the NRC has continued to allocate the LLW surcharge based on the volume of LLW disposal of three classes of licenses: operating reactors, fuel facilities, and materials users. Because LLW activities support NRC licensees and Agreement States, the costs of these activities are recovered through annual fees.
Table IV also shows the allocation of the LLW surcharge activity. For FY 2015, the total budget allocated for LLW activity is $4 million. (Individual values may not sum to totals due to rounding.)
The NRC is required to establish rebaselined annual fees, which includes updating the number of NRC licensees in the FY 2015 fee calculations. Therefore, the NRC proposes to revise its annual fees in §§ 171.15 and 171.16 for FY 2015 to recover approximately 90 percent of the NRC's FY 2015 budget authority, less non-fee amounts and the estimated amount to be recovered through 10 CFR part 170 fees. The total estimated 10 CFR part 170 collections for this proposed rule total are $324.3 million, a decrease of $8.3 million from the FY 2014 fee rule, primarily within the fuel facilities and spent fuel storage fee classes. These decreases are later explained in detail within each fee class. The total amount to be recovered through annual fees from current licensees for this proposed rule is $601.9 million, an increase of $17.8
In the agency's FY 2006 final fee rule (71 FR 30721; May 30, 2006), the Commission determined that the agency should proceed with a presumption in favor of rebaselining when calculating annual fees each year. Rebaselining involves a detailed analysis of the NRC's budget, with the NRC allocating budgeted resources to fee classes and categories of licensees. The Commission expects that for most years there will be budgetary and other changes that warrant the use of the rebaselining method.
For FY 2015, the NRC's total fee recoverable budget, as mandated by law, is $935.3 million, an increase of $4.5 million compared to FY 2014. The FY 2015 budget was allocated to the appropriate fee class based on budgeted activities. As compared with the FY 2014 annual fees, the FY 2015 rebaselined fees increase for most fee classes—operating reactors, spent fuel storage and reactor decommissioning, fuel facilities, research and test reactors, some materials users, DOE transportation activities, and most uranium recovery licensees.
The factors affecting all annual fees include the distribution of budgeted costs to the different classes of licenses (based on the specific activities the NRC will perform in FY 2015), the estimated 10 CFR part 170 collections for the various classes of licenses, and allocation of the fee-relief surplus adjustment to all fee classes. The percentage of the NRC's budget not subject to fee recovery remains at 10 percent for FY 2015, the same as FY 2014.
Table V shows the rebaselined fees for FY 2015 for a representative list of categories of licensees. The FY 2014 amounts are provided for comparison purposes. (Individual values may not sum to totals due to rounding.)
The work papers (ADAMS Accession No. ML15021A198) that support this proposed rule show in detail the allocation of the NRC's budgeted resources for each class of licenses and how the fees are calculated. The work papers are available as indicated in Section XIII, “Availability of Documents,” of this document.
Paragraphs a. through h. of this section describe budgetary resources allocated to each class of licenses and the calculations of the rebaselined fees. Individual values in the tables presented in this section may not sum to totals due to rounding.
The FY 2015 budgeted costs to be recovered in the annual fees assessment to the fuel facility class of licenses (which includes licensees in fee categories 1.A.(1)(a), 1.A.(1)(b), 1.A.(2)(a), 1.A.(2)(b), 1.A.(2)(c), 1.E., and 2.A.(1) under § 171.16) are approximately $38.6 million. This value is based on the full cost of budgeted resources associated with all activities that support this fee class, which is reduced by estimated 10 CFR part 170 collections and adjusted for allocated generic transportation resources and fee-relief. In FY 2015, the LLW surcharge for fuel facilities is added to the allocated fee-relief adjustment (see Table IV, “Application of Fee-Relief Adjustment and LLW Surcharge, FY 2015,” in Section II, “Discussion,” of this document). The summary calculations used to derive this value are presented in Table VI for FY 2015, with FY 2014 values shown for comparison. (Individual values may not sum to totals due to rounding.)
In FY 2015, the fuel facilities annual fee increased in part due to a slight rise in budgetary resources. The primary cause for the FY 2015 increase was reduced 10 CFR part 170 billings from construction delays. The NRC allocates the total remaining annual fee recovery amount to the individual fuel facility licensees, based on the effort/fee determination matrix developed for the FY 1999 final fee rule (64 FR 31447; June 10, 1999). In the matrix included in the publicly-available NRC work papers, licensees are grouped into categories according to their licensed activities (
This methodology is adaptable to changes in the number of licensees or certificate holders, licensed or certified material and/or activities, and total programmatic resources to be recovered through annual fees. When a license or certificate is modified, it may result in a change of category for a particular fuel facility licensee, as a result of the methodology used in the fuel facility effort/fee matrix. Consequently, this change may also have an effect on the fees assessed to other fuel facility licensees and certificate holders. For example, if a fuel facility licensee amends its license/certificate to reflect cessation of licensed activities (
The methodology is applied as follows. First, a fee category is assigned, based on the nuclear material possessed or used, and/or the activity or activities authorized by license or certificate. Although a licensee/certificate holder may elect not to fully use a license/certificate, the license/certificate is still used as the source for determining authorized nuclear material possession and use/activity. Second, the category and license/certificate information are used to determine where the licensee/certificate holder fits into the matrix. The matrix depicts the categorization of licensees/certificate holders by authorized material types and use/activities.
Each year, the NRC's fuel facility project managers and regulatory analysts determine the level of effort associated with regulating each of these facilities. This is done by assigning, for each fuel facility, separate effort factors for the safety and safeguards activities associated with each type of regulatory activity. The matrix includes 10 types of regulatory activities, including enrichment and scrap/waste-related activities (see the work papers for the complete list). Effort factors are assigned as follows: 1 (low regulatory effort), 5 (moderate regulatory effort), and 10 (high regulatory effort). The NRC then totals separate effort factors for safety and safeguards activities for each fee category.
The effort factors for the various fuel facility fee categories are summarized in Table VII. The value of the effort factors shown, as well as the percent of the total effort factor for all fuel facilities, reflects the total regulatory effort for each fee category (not per facility). This results in spreading of costs to other fee categories.
For FY 2015, the total budgeted resources for safety activities are $19.8 million, excluding the fee-relief adjustment and the reclassification adjustment. This amount is allocated to each fee category based on its percent of the total regulatory effort for safety activities. For example, if the total effort factor for safety activities for all fuel facilities is 100, and the total effort factor for safety activities for a given fee category is 10, that fee category will be allocated 10 percent of the total budgeted resources for safety activities. Similarly, the budgeted resources amount of $17.4 million for safeguards activities is allocated to each fee category based on its percent of the total regulatory effort for safeguards activities. The fuel facility fee class' portion of the fee-relief adjustment, $1.4 million, is allocated to each fee category based on its percent of the total regulatory effort for both safety and
The total FY 2015 budgeted costs to be recovered through annual fees assessed to the uranium recovery class (which includes licensees in fee categories 2.A.(2)(a), 2.A.(2)(b), 2.A.(2)(c), 2.A.(2)(d), 2.A.(2)(e), 2.A.(3), 2.A.(4), 2.A.(5), and 18.B. under § 171.16) are approximately $1.2 million. The derivation of this value is shown in Table IX, with FY 2014 values shown for comparison purposes.
In comparison to FY 2014, the proposed FY 2015 budgetary resources for uranium recovery licensees increased due to greater resources required for environmental reviews of uranium mining applications and tribal consultations with uranium recovery licensing actions. Specifically, staff worked to expedite environmental reviews for uranium mining applications by improving the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Tribal Consultation process to accelerate NRC consideration of uranium mining applications.
Since FY 2002, the NRC has computed the annual fee for the uranium recovery fee class by allocating the total annual fee amount for this fee class between the DOE and the other licensees in this fee class. The NRC regulates DOE's Title I and Title II activities under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA). The Congress established the two programs, Title I and Title II, under UMTRCA to protect the public and the environment from uranium milling. The UMTRCA Title I program is for remedial action at abandoned mill tailings sites where tailings resulted largely from production of uranium for the weapons program. The NRC also regulates DOE's UMTRCA Title II program, which is directed toward uranium mill sites licensed by the NRC or Agreement States in or after 1978.
In FY 2015, the annual fee assessed to DOE includes recovery of the costs specifically budgeted for the NRC's UMTRCA Title I and II activities, plus 10 percent of the remaining annual fee amount, including generic/other costs (minus 10 percent of the fee-relief adjustment), for the uranium recovery class. The NRC assesses the remaining 90 percent generic/other costs minus 90 percent of the fee-relief adjustment, to the other NRC licensees in this fee class that are subject to annual fees.
The costs to be recovered through annual fees assessed to the uranium recovery class are shown in Table X.
The NRC will continue to use a matrix, which is included in the work papers, to determine the level of effort associated with conducting the generic regulatory actions for the different (non-DOE) licensees in this fee class. The weights derived in this matrix are used to allocate the approximately $541,098 annual fee amount to these licensees. The use of this uranium recovery annual fee matrix was established in the FY 1995 final fee rule (60 FR 32217; June 20, 1995). The FY 2015 matrix is described as follows.
First, the methodology identifies the categories of licenses included in this fee class (besides DOE). These categories are: Conventional uranium mills and heap leach facilities; uranium
Second, the matrix identifies the types of operating activities that support and benefit these licensees. The activities related to generic decommissioning/reclamation are not included in the matrix because they are included in the fee-relief activities. Therefore, they are not a factor in determining annual fees. The activities included in the matrix are operations, waste operations, and groundwater protection. The relative weight of each type of activity is then determined, based on the regulatory resources associated with each activity. The operations, waste operations, and groundwater protection activities have weights of 0, 5, and 10, respectively, in the matrix.
Each year, the NRC determines the level of benefit to each licensee for generic uranium recovery program activities for each type of generic activity in the matrix. This is done by assigning, for each fee category, separate benefit factors for each type of regulatory activity in the matrix. Benefit factors are assigned on a scale of 0 to 10 as follows: 0 (no regulatory benefit), 5 (moderate regulatory benefit), and 10 (high regulatory benefit). These benefit factors are first multiplied by the relative weight assigned to each activity (described previously). The NRC then calculates total and per licensee benefit factors for each fee category. Therefore, these benefit factors reflect the relative regulatory benefit associated with each licensee and fee category.
Table XI displays the benefit factors per licensee and per fee category, for each of the non-DOE fee categories included in the uranium recovery fee class as follows:
Applying these factors to the approximately $541,098 in budgeted costs to be recovered from non-DOE uranium recovery licensees results in the total annual fees for each fee category. The annual fee per licensee is calculated by dividing the total allocated budgeted resources for the fee category by the number of licensees in that fee category, as summarized in Table XII.
The total budgeted costs to be recovered from the power reactor fee class in FY 2015 in the form of annual fees is $503.6 million, as shown in Table XIII. The FY 2014 values are shown for comparison. (Individual values may not sum to totals due to rounding.)
The operating power reactor annual fee increase is partially the result of a slight rise in budgetary resources in the FY 2015 President's budget, partially the result of a $2 million 10 CFR part 170 reduction in estimated billings, and partially the result of the December 2014 shutdown of Vermont Yankee. The permanent shutdown of the Vermont Yankee reactor decreases the fleet of operating reactors, which subsequently increases the annual fees for the rest of the fleet. As noted earlier, when the final fee rule incorporates the reduction included in the FY 2015 appropriations, this operating power reactor annual fee will decrease.
The budgeted costs to be recovered through annual fees to power reactors are divided equally among the 99 power reactors licensed to operate, resulting in an FY 2015 annual fee of $5,087,000 per reactor. Additionally, each power reactor licensed to operate would be assessed the FY 2015 spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning annual fee of $237,000. The total FY 2015 annual fee is $5,324,000 for each power reactor licensed to operate. The annual fees for power reactors are presented in § 171.15.
For FY 2015, budgeted costs of $28.9 million for spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning would be recovered through annual fees assessed to 10 CFR part 50 power reactors and to 10 CFR part 72 licensees who do not hold a 10 CFR part 50 license. Those reactor licensees that have ceased operations and have no fuel onsite would not be subject to these annual fees.
The increased annual fee is due to an increase in budgetary resources for rulemaking, a decrease in 10 CFR part 170 billings, and a decrease in the number of licensees. Staff has dedicated significant time working on improvements to 10 CFR part 71 to ensure compatibility with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) transportation and storage standards—this generic rulemaking activity must be recovered through 10 CFR part 171 fees. Furthermore, the estimated 10 CFR part 170 fees decreased because staff finalized major reviews in 2014. Table XIV shows the calculation of this annual fee amount. The FY 2014 values are shown for comparison. (Individual values may not sum to totals due to rounding.)
The required annual fee recovery amount is divided equally among 122 licensees, resulting in an FY 2015 annual fee of $237,000 per licensee.
Approximately $350,000 in budgeted costs would be recovered through annual fees assessed to the research and test reactor class of licenses for FY 2015. Table XV summarizes the annual fee calculation for the research and test reactors for FY 2015. The FY 2014 values are shown for comparison. (Individual values may not sum to totals due to rounding.)
The increased annual fee results from the decline in 10 CFR part 170 billings following the completion of licensing actions associated with the Aerotest Radiography and Research Reactor. The resources required for this project are now allocated elsewhere, as these licensing decisions have been challenged and are currently the subject of litigation before the Commission.
The required annual fee recovery amount is divided equally among the four research and test reactors subject to annual fees and results in an FY 2015 annual fee of $88,500 for each licensee.
The agency is establishing an annual fee in the FY 2015 fee rule for an anticipated rare earth facility that is currently expected to be operational in 2016. No fees are currently expected to be charged in this category in FY 2015; establishing this fee now is intended to promote regulatory predictability and stability for potential licensees in this category. The annual fee for rare earth facilities will be $83,800. Table XVI shows the calculation of the FY 2015 annual fee amount for rare earth facilities.
For FY 2015, budget costs of $36.8 million for materials users would be recovered through annual fees assessed to 10 CFR parts 30, 40, and 70 licensees. Table XVII shows the calculation of the FY 2015 annual fee amount for materials users licensees. The FY 2014 values are shown for comparison. Note the following fee categories under § 171.16 are included in this fee class: 1.C., 1.D., 1.F., 2.B., 2.C. through 2.F., 3.A. through 3.S., 4.A. through 4.C., 5.A., 5.B., 6.A., 7.A. through 7.C., 8.A., 9.A. through 9.D., and 17. (Individual values may not sum to totals due to rounding.)
To equitably and fairly allocate the $36.8 million in FY 2015 budgeted costs to be recovered in annual fees assessed to the approximately 3,000 diverse materials users licensees, the NRC would continue to base the annual fees for each fee category within this class on the 10 CFR part 170 application fees and estimated inspection costs for each fee category. Because the application fees and inspection costs are indicative of the complexity of the license, this approach would continue to provide a proxy for allocating the generic and other regulatory costs to the diverse categories of licenses based on the NRC's cost to regulate each category. This fee calculation would also continue to consider the inspection frequency (priority), which is indicative of the safety risk and resulting regulatory costs associated with the categories of licenses.
The annual fee for these categories of materials users' licenses is developed as follows: Annual fee = Constant x [Application Fee + (Average Inspection Cost/Inspection Priority)] + Inspection Multiplier x (Average Inspection Cost/Inspection Priority) + Unique Category Costs.
The constant the multiplier necessary to recover approximately $26.5 million in general costs (including allocated generic transportation costs) is 1.49 for FY 2015. The average inspection cost is the average inspection hours for each fee category multiplied by the hourly rate of $277. The inspection priority is the interval between routine inspections, expressed in years. The inspection multiplier is the multiple
The annual fee to be assessed to each licensee also includes a share of the fee-relief assessment of approximately $448,000 allocated to the materials users fee class (see Table IV, “Allocation of Fee-Relief Adjustment and LLW Surcharge, FY 2015,” in Section II, “Discussion,” of this document), and for certain categories of these licensees, a share of the approximately $560,000 surcharge costs allocated to the fee class. The annual fee for each fee category is shown in § 171.16(d).
Table XVIII shows the calculation of the FY 2015 generic transportation budgeted resources to be recovered through annual fees. The FY 2014 values are shown for comparison. (Individual values may not sum to totals due to rounding.)
The NRC must approve any package used for shipping nuclear material before shipment. If the package meets NRC requirements, the NRC issues a Radioactive Material Package Certificate of Compliance (CoC) to the organization requesting approval of a package. Organizations are authorized to ship radioactive material in a package approved for use under the general licensing provisions of 10 CFR part 71, “Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material.” The resources associated with generic transportation activities are distributed to the license fee classes based on the number of CoCs benefitting (used by) that fee class, as a proxy for the generic transportation resources expended for each fee class.
The total FY 2015 budgetary resources for generic transportation activities, including those to support DOE CoCs, are $7.35 million. The overall increase is due to rulemaking activities involving 10 CFR part 71 Compatibility with IAEA Transportation Standards & Improvements and the increased activities from the development of the Continued Storage Rule and associated Generic Environmental Impact Statement.
Generic transportation resources associated with fee-exempt entities are not included in this total. These costs are included in the appropriate fee-relief category (
Consistent with the policy established in the NRC's FY 2006 final fee rule (71 FR 30721; May 30, 2006), the NRC would recover generic transportation costs unrelated to DOE as part of existing annual fees for license fee classes. The NRC would continue to assess a separate annual fee under § 171.16, fee category 18.A., for DOE transportation activities. The amount of the allocated generic resources is calculated by multiplying the percentage of total CoCs used by each fee class (and DOE) by the total generic transportation resources to be recovered.
The distribution of these resources to the license fee classes and DOE is shown in Table XIX. The distribution is adjusted to account for the licensees in each fee class that are fee-exempt. For example, if four CoCs benefit the entire research and test reactor class, but only 4 of 31 research and test reactors are subject to annual fees, the number of CoCs used to determine the proportion of generic transportation resources allocated to research and test reactor annual fees equals (4/31) x 4, or 0.5 CoCs.
The NRC assesses an annual fee to DOE based on the 10 CFR part 71 CoCs it holds and does not allocate these DOE-related resources to other licensees' annual fees, because these resources specifically support DOE. Note that DOE's annual fee includes a reduction for the fee-relief surplus adjustment (see Table IV, “Allocation of Fee-Relief Adjustment and LLW Surcharge, FY 2015,” in Section II, “Discussion,” of this document), resulting in a total annual fee of $1,511,000 million for FY 2015. The overall increase is due to rulemaking activities involving 10 CFR part 71 Compatibility with IAEA Transportation Standards & Improvements. This
The NRC is proposing the following 12 administrative changes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Two program offices, the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) and the Office of International Programs (OIP), have completed their biennial review to the CFO regarding the FY 2015 fees. The NMSS recommended changes to the professional staff hours for most of the small materials users. The OIP also recommended changes to the hours for some import and export license fee categories.
Cumulatively, the FY 2015 biennial review resulted in increased professional staff hours within 11 fee categories and decreased professional staff hours within 11 fee categories. The changes in the number of hours and the hourly rate are components that will be used to determine the 10 CFR part 170 fees for the materials user's licenses as well as import and export applications.
9.
10.
11.
12.
The FY 2015 fee rule will be a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801-808). Therefore, the NRC's fee schedules for FY 2015 will become effective 60 days after publication of the final rule in the
Materials licensees with annual fees of less than $100,000 are billed annually. Those materials licensees whose license anniversary date during FY 2015 falls before the effective date of the FY 2015 final rule will be billed for the annual fee during the anniversary month of the license at the FY 2014 annual fee rate. Those materials licensees whose license anniversary date falls on or after the effective date of the FY 2015 final rule will be billed for the annual fee at the FY 2015 annual fee rate during the anniversary month of the license, and payment will be due on the date of the invoice.
The following paragraphs describe the specific amendments proposed by this rulemaking.
The NRC proposes to add a new definition of “Overhead and General and Administrative Costs” and revise the definition for “Utilization facility.”
The NRC proposes to revise this section to reflect the hourly rate for FY 2015.
The NRC proposes to revise fees for fee category code K. to reflect the FY 2015 proposed hourly rate for flat fee applications.
The NRC proposes to add subcategories to fee category 3.L. licenses (broad scope) to assess additional fees to licensees such as the United States Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Army, in order to accurately reflect the cost of services provided by the NRC. The NRC also proposes to revise footnote 6 to avoid duplicate billing for fuel cycle facility licensees.
The NRC proposes to correct the definition for “Overhead and General and Administrative Costs” to reflect the FY 2008 merger of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
The NRC proposes to revise paragraph (b)(1) to reflect the required FY 2015 annual fee to be collected from each operating power reactor by September 30, 2015. The NRC proposes to revise the introductory text of paragraph (b)(2) to reflect FY 2015 in reference to annual fees and fee-relief adjustment. The NRC proposes to revise paragraph (c)(1) and the introductory text of paragraph (c)(2) to reflect the FY 2015 spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning and spent fuel storage annual fee for 10 CFR part 50 licenses and 10 CFR part 72 licensees who do not hold a 10 CFR part 50 license, and the FY 2015 fee-relief adjustment. The NRC proposes to revise the introductory text of paragraph (d)(1) and paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) to reflect the FY 2015 fee-relief adjustment for the operating reactor power class of
The NRC proposes to revise paragraphs (d) and (e) to reflect FY 2015 annual fees and the FY 2015 fee-relief adjustment. The NRC also proposes to add subcategories to fee category 3.L. licenses (broad scope) to assess additional fees to licensees such as the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Army, in order to accurately reflect the cost of services provided by the NRC. The NRC also proposes to revise footnote 6 to avoid duplicate billing for fuel cycle facility licensees.
Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to perform an analysis that considers the impact of a rulemaking on small entities. The NRC's regulatory flexibility analysis for this proposed rule is available as indicated in Section XIII, Availability of Documents, of this document, and a summary is provided in the following paragraphs.
The NRC is required by the OBRA-90, as amended, to recover approximately 90 percent of its FY 2015 budget authority through the assessment of user fees. The OBRA-90 further requires that the NRC establish a schedule of charges that fairly and equitably allocates the aggregate amount of these charges among licensees.
The FY 2015 proposed rule establishes the schedules of fees necessary for the NRC to recover 90 percent of its budget authority for FY 2015. The proposed rule estimates some increases in annual fees charged to certain licensees and holders of certificates, registrations, and approvals, and in decreases in those annual fees charged to others. Licensees affected by these proposed estimates include those who qualify as small entities under the NRC's size standards in § 2.810.
The NRC prepared a FY 2015 biennial regulatory analysis in accordance with the FY 2001 final rule (66 FR 32467; June 14, 2001). This rule also stated the small entity fees will be reexamined every 2 years and in the same years the NRC conducts the biennial review of fees as required by the Office of Chief Financial Officer Act.
For this proposed rule, small entity fees would increase to $3,400 for the maximum upper-tier small entity fee and increase to $700 for the lower-tier small entity as result of the biennial review which factored in the number of increased hours for application reviews and inspections in the fee calculations. The next small entity biennial review is scheduled for FY 2017.
Additionally, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act requires all Federal agencies to prepare a written compliance guide for each rule for which the agency is required by 5 U.S.C. 604 to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. The NRC, in compliance with the law, has prepared the “Small Entity Compliance Guide,” which is available as indicated in Section XIII, Availability of Documents, of this document.
Under OBRA-90, as amended, and the AEA, the NRC is required to recover 90 percent of its budget authority, or total appropriations of $1,059.5 million, in FY 2015. The NRC established fee methodology guidelines for 10 CFR part 170 in 1978, and more fee methodology guidelines through the establishment of 10 CFR part 171 in 1986. In subsequent rulemakings, the NRC has adjusted its fees without changing the underlying principles of its fee policy in order to ensure that the NRC continues to comply with the statutory requirements for cost recovery in OBRA-90 and the AEA.
In this rulemaking, the NRC continues this long-standing approach. Therefore, the NRC did not identify any alternatives to the current fee structure guidelines and did not prepare a regulatory analysis for this rulemaking.
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this proposed rule and that a backfit analysis is not required. A backfit analysis is not required because these amendments do not require the modification of, or addition to, systems, structures, components, or the design of a facility, or the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility, or the procedures or organization required to design, construct, or operate a facility.
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). The NRC requests comment on the proposed rule with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used.
The NRC has determined that this rule is the type of action described in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed rule.
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this proposed fee rule, the NRC is proposing to amend the licensing, inspection, and annual fees charged to its licensees and applicants, as necessary, to recover approximately 90 percent of its budget authority in FY 2015, as required by OBRA-90, as amended. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act requires all Federal agencies to prepare a written compliance guide for each rule for which the NRC is required by 5 U.S.C. 604 to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. The NRC, in compliance with the law, prepared the “Small Entity Compliance Guide” for the FY 2015 proposed fee rule. This document is available as indicated in Section XIII,
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
Throughout the development of this rule, the NRC may post documents related to this rule, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking Web site at
Byproduct material, Import and export licenses, Intergovernmental relations, Non-payment penalties, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Source material, Special nuclear material.
Annual charges, Byproduct material, Holders of certificates, registrations, approvals, Intergovernmental relations, Nonpayment penalties, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Source material, Special nuclear material.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR parts 170 and 171.
Independent Offices Appropriations Act sec. 501 (31 U.S.C. 9701); Atomic Energy Act sec. 161(w) (42 U.S.C. 2201(w)); Energy Reorganization Act sec. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); Chief Financial Officers Act sec. 205 (31 U.S.C. 901, 902); Government Paperwork Elimination Act sec. 1704 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy Policy Act secs. 623, Energy Policy Act of 2005 sec. 651(e), Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 783 (42 U.S.C. 2201(w), 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111).
(1) The Government benefits for each employee such as leave and holidays, retirement and disability benefits, health and life insurance costs, and social security costs;
(2) Travel costs;
(3) Overhead [
(4) Indirect costs that would include, but not be limited to, NRC central policy direction, legal and executive management services for the Commission and special and independent reviews, investigations, and enforcement and appraisal of NRC programs and operations. Some of the organizations included, in whole or in part, are the Commissioners, Secretary, Executive Director for Operations, General Counsel, Congressional and Public Affairs (except for international safety and safeguards programs), Inspector General, Investigations, Enforcement, Small Business and Civil Rights, the Technical Training Center, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. The Commission views these budgeted costs as support for all its regulatory services provided to applicants, licensees, and certificate holders, and these costs must be recovered under Public Law 101-508.
(1) Any nuclear reactor other than one designed or used primarily for the formation of plutonium or U-233; or
(2) An accelerator-driven subcritical operating assembly used for the irradiation of materials containing special nuclear material and described in the application assigned docket number 50-608.
Fees for permits, licenses, amendments, renewals, special projects, 10 CFR part 55 re-qualification and replacement examinations and tests, other required reviews, approvals, and inspections under §§ 170.21 and 170.31 will be calculated using the professional staff-hour rate of $277 per hour.
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act sec. 7601, Pub. L. 99-272, as amended by sec. 5601, Pub. L. 100-203, as amended by sec. 3201, Pub. L. 101-239, as amended by sec. 6101, Pub. L. 101-508, as amended by sec. 2903a, Pub. L. 102-486 (42 U.S.C. 2213, 2214), and as amended by Title IV, Pub. L. 109-103 (42 U.S.C. 2214); Atomic Energy Act sec. 161(w), 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2201(w), 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act sec. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); Government Paperwork Elimination Act sec. 1704 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy Policy Act of 2005 sec. 651(e), Pub. L. 109-58 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111).
(b)(1) The FY 2015 annual fee for each operating power reactor which must be collected by September 30, 2015, is $5,324,000.
(2) The FY 2015 annual fees are comprised of a base annual fee for power reactors licensed to operate, a base spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning annual fee, and associated additional charges (fee-relief adjustment). The activities comprising the spent storage/reactor decommissioning base annual fee are shown in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. The activities comprising the FY 2015 fee-relief adjustment are shown in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The activities comprising the FY 2015 base annual fee for operating power reactors are as follows:
(c)(1) The FY 2015 annual fee for each power reactor holding a 10 CFR part 50 license that is in a decommissioning or possession-only status and has spent fuel onsite, and for each independent spent fuel storage 10 CFR part 72 licensee who does not hold a 10 CFR part 50 license, is $237,000.
(2) The FY 2015 annual fee is comprised of a base spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning annual fee (which is also included in the operating power reactor annual fee shown in paragraph (b) of this section) and a fee-relief adjustment. The activities comprising the FY 2015 fee-relief adjustment are shown in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The activities comprising the FY 2015 spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning rebaselined annual fee are:
(d)(1) The fee-relief adjustment allocated to annual fees includes a surcharge for the activities listed in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, plus the amount remaining after total budgeted resources for the activities included in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (d)(1)(iii) of this section are reduced by the appropriations the NRC receives for these types of activities. If the NRC's appropriations for these types of activities are greater than the budgeted resources for the activities included in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (d)(1)(iii) of this section for a given FY, annual fees will be reduced. The activities comprising the FY 2015 fee-relief adjustment are as follows:
(2) The total FY 2015 fee-relief adjustment allocated to the operating power reactor class of licenses is an $11,313,600 fee-relief surplus, not including the amount allocated to the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning class. The FY 2015 operating power reactor fee-relief adjustment to be assessed to each operating power reactor is approximately a $114,279 fee-relief surplus. This amount is calculated by dividing the total operating power reactor fee-relief surplus adjustment, $11.3 million, by the number of operating power reactors (99).
(3) The FY 2015 fee-relief adjustment allocated to the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning class of licenses is a $533,600 fee-relief assessment. The FY 2015 spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning fee-relief adjustment to be assessed to each operating power reactor, each power reactor in decommissioning or possession-only status that has spent fuel onsite, and to each independent spent fuel storage 10 CFR part 72 licensee who does not hold a 10 CFR part 50 license, is a $4,374 fee-relief assessment. This amount is calculated by dividing the total fee-relief adjustment costs allocated to this class by the total number of power reactor licenses, except those that permanently ceased operations and have no fuel onsite, and 10 CFR part 72 licensees who do not hold a 10 CFR part 50 license.
(e) The FY 2015 annual fees for licensees authorized to operate a research or test (non-power) reactor licensed under part 50 of this chapter, unless the reactor is exempted from fees under § 171.11(a), are as follows:
(d) The FY 2015 annual fees are comprised of a base annual fee and an allocation for fee-relief adjustment. The activities comprising the FY 2015 fee-relief adjustment are shown for convenience in paragraph (e) of this section. The FY 2015 annual fees for materials licensees and holders of certificates, registrations, or approvals subject to fees under this section are shown in the following table:
(e) The fee-relief adjustment allocated to annual fees includes the budgeted resources for the activities listed in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, plus the total budgeted resources for the activities included in paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) of this section, as reduced by the appropriations the NRC receives for these types of activities. If the NRC's appropriations for these types of activities are greater than the budgeted resources for the activities included in paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) of this section for a given FY, a negative fee-relief adjustment (or annual fee reduction) will be allocated to annual fees. The activities comprising the FY 2015 fee-relief adjustment are as follows:
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
| 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 |