| Page Range | 18515-18772 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 18515 - World Autism Awareness Day, 2015 | |
| 80 FR 18517 - Delegation of Authority Under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 | |
| 80 FR 18652 - Sunshine Act Meeting; National Science Board | |
| 80 FR 18662 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 80 FR 18664 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 80 FR 18650 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 80 FR 18628 - Issuance of Priority Review Voucher; Rare Pediatric Disease Product | |
| 80 FR 18629 - Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies: Modifications and Revisions; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 80 FR 18519 - Amendment of Restricted Area Boundary Descriptions; Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA | |
| 80 FR 18584 - Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations; Correction | |
| 80 FR 18552 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Grouper Recreational Management Measures | |
| 80 FR 18641 - Proposed Collection; 60-day Comment Request: Identifying Experts in Prevention Science Methods To Include on NIH Review Panels (OD) | |
| 80 FR 18598 - Information Collection; Community Forest and Open Space Program | |
| 80 FR 18606 - Applications for New Awards; Vocational Rehabilitation Services Projects for American Indians With Disabilities | |
| 80 FR 18654 - Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes; Call for Nominations | |
| 80 FR 18655 - Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes: Meeting Notice | |
| 80 FR 18643 - Intent To Request Renewal From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information; Maryland Three Airports: Enhanced Security Procedures for Operations at Certain Airports in the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone 1 | |
| 80 FR 18675 - Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls: Notifications to the Congress of Proposed Commercial Export Licenses | |
| 80 FR 18652 - In the Matter of ATC Group Services, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 18627 - Advisory Committee on the Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program Evaluation | |
| 80 FR 18605 - Community Bank Advisory Council Meeting | |
| 80 FR 18604 - Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited First Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order | |
| 80 FR 18602 - Lightweight Thermal Paper From Germany: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013 | |
| 80 FR 18603 - Lightweight Thermal Paper From Germany: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 | |
| 80 FR 18627 - Tribal Consultation Meetings | |
| 80 FR 18674 - Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy Notice of Charter Renewal | |
| 80 FR 18535 - Additional Air Quality Designations and Technical Amendment To Correct Inadvertent Error in Air Quality Designations for the 2012 Primary Annual Fine Particle (PM2.5 | |
| 80 FR 18551 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2015 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for Blueline Tilefish in the South Atlantic Region | |
| 80 FR 18594 - Notice of Funds Availability: Inviting Applications for the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program | |
| 80 FR 18553 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Northern Rockfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
| 80 FR 18596 - Notice of Funds Availability: Inviting Applications for the Market Access Program | |
| 80 FR 18588 - Notice of Funds Availability: Inviting Applications for the Emerging Markets Program | |
| 80 FR 18643 - Distant Water Tuna Fleet Manning Exemption | |
| 80 FR 18554 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Catcher/Processors Using Hook-and-Line Gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska | |
| 80 FR 18647 - Standard on Commercial Diving Operations; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements | |
| 80 FR 18649 - Asbestos in Construction Standard; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements | |
| 80 FR 18591 - Notice of Funds Availability: Inviting Applications for the Quality Samples Program | |
| 80 FR 18586 - Notice of Funds Availability: Inviting Applications for the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program | |
| 80 FR 18674 - U.S. Department of State Advisory Committee on Private International Law (ACPIL): Public Meeting on Electronic Commerce | |
| 80 FR 18616 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 80 FR 18611 - Combined Notice of Filings. | |
| 80 FR 18613 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 80 FR 18612 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 80 FR 18526 - Annual Update to Fee Schedule for the Use of Government Lands by Hydropower Licensees | |
| 80 FR 18614 - Lock 11 Hydro Partners; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
| 80 FR 18618 - Richard Bertea; Notice of Termination of License (Minor Project) By Implied Surrender and Soliciting Comments and Protests | |
| 80 FR 18617 - Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Application | |
| 80 FR 18615 - Texas Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Filing | |
| 80 FR 18519 - Federal Awarding Agency Regulatory Implementation of Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards; Correction of RIN Number | |
| 80 FR 18674 - Notice of Charter Renewal for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Scientific Advisory Board | |
| 80 FR 18620 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 18706 - Agency Requests for Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection(s): Maritime Administration Service Obligation Compliance Annual Report | |
| 80 FR 18645 - Delegation of Authority for the Office of Public and Indian Housing | |
| 80 FR 18675 - The U.S. National Commission for UNESCO; Notice of Renewal of Committee Charter | |
| 80 FR 18704 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel PHANTOM; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 80 FR 18705 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel SHIP FACED; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 80 FR 18644 - Order of Succession for the Office of Public and Indian Housing | |
| 80 FR 18704 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel PACIFIC PEARL; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 80 FR 18705 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel OCTOPUS; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 80 FR 18610 - Update on Reimbursement for Costs of Remedial Action at Active Uranium and Thorium Processing Sites | |
| 80 FR 18556 - Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROVs); Notice of Extension of Comment Period | |
| 80 FR 18697 - Qualification of Drivers; Application for Exemptions; Hearing | |
| 80 FR 18696 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 80 FR 18690 - Hours of Service (HOS) of Drivers; Application for Renewal and Expansion of American Pyrotechnics Association (APA) Exemption From the 14-Hour Rule During Independence Day Celebrations | |
| 80 FR 18693 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 80 FR 18681 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 80 FR 18620 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 80 FR 18624 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 80 FR 18620 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in Permissible Nonbanking Activities or To Acquire Companies That Are Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities; Correction | |
| 80 FR 18631 - Privacy Act of 1974; Report of an Altered System of Records | |
| 80 FR 18599 - Notice of Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Nacimiento Mine Site, Santa Fe National Forest, New Mexico | |
| 80 FR 18638 - Findings of Research Misconduct | |
| 80 FR 18646 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Labor Market Information Cooperative Agreement | |
| 80 FR 18606 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Lender's Application Process (LAP) | |
| 80 FR 18646 - Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree | |
| 80 FR 18669 - Hawaii Disaster Number HI-00035 | |
| 80 FR 18642 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Evaluation of the NHLBI Proteomics Centers Program: Qualitative Interviews (NHLBI) | |
| 80 FR 18600 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Geographic Partnership Programs | |
| 80 FR 18556 - Small Business Mentor Protégé Program; Small Business Size Regulations; Government Contracting Programs; 8(a) Business Development/Small Disadvantaged Business Status Determinations; HUBZone Program; Women-Owned Small Business Federal Contract Program; Rules of Procedure Governing Cases Before the Office of Hearings and Appeals | |
| 80 FR 18598 - Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Colorado | |
| 80 FR 18667 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Section (a)(iv) of Rule 703, Financial Responsibility and Reporting | |
| 80 FR 18669 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 18707 - Clinical Science Research and Development Service Cooperative Studies Scientific Evaluation Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 18699 - Response to Comments on Updates to National Transit Database Annual Information Collection | |
| 80 FR 18707 - Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans, Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 18605 - Cancellation of Meeting of Advisory Committee on Commercial Remote Sensing | |
| 80 FR 18639 - Meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Children and Disasters | |
| 80 FR 18522 - Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations Based on the 2014 Missile Technology Control Regime Plenary Agreements | |
| 80 FR 18640 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-day Comment Request; National Institute of Health Neurobiobank Tissue Access Request | |
| 80 FR 18706 - Commonwealth Bank, F.S.B., Mt. Sterling, Kentucky; Approval of Conversion Application | |
| 80 FR 18641 - National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 18643 - National Cancer Institute Notice of Charter Renewal | |
| 80 FR 18664 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 18662 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 3301(h) | |
| 80 FR 18665 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Share Member-Designated Risk Settings in the Trading System With Clearing Members | |
| 80 FR 18673 - Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; Computer Matching Program (SSA/Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS))-Match Number 1305 | |
| 80 FR 18620 - Federal Advisory Committee Act; Downloadable Security Technology Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 18626 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 80 FR 18624 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 80 FR 18679 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Application To Impose and Use the Revenue From a Passenger Facility Charge at Tampa International Airport, Tampa, Florida | |
| 80 FR 18526 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho | |
| 80 FR 18557 - Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category | |
| 80 FR 18680 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on US 183 From US 290 to SH 71 (Bergstrom Expressway) in Texas | |
| 80 FR 18639 - Reimbursement Rates for Calendar Year 2015 | |
| 80 FR 18742 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Humboldt Marten as an Endangered or Threatened Species | |
| 80 FR 18528 - Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; San Joaquin Valley; Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 | |
| 80 FR 18580 - NASA FAR Supplement Regulatory Review No. 3 | |
| 80 FR 18655 - Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information | |
| 80 FR 18601 - Further Proposed Interpretations of Parts of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 | |
| 80 FR 18706 - Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee; Meetings | |
| 80 FR 18619 - Notice of Availability of Draft Scientific Assessment for Public Comment | |
| 80 FR 18710 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the Big Sandy Crayfish and the Guyandotte River Crayfish |
Commodity Credit Corporation
Forest Service
First Responder Network Authority
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Maritime Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
United States Mint
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.
Office of the General Counsel, HUD.
Final rule; correction.
This document advises that HUD's portion of the governmentwide joint interim rule that implements the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, published on December 19, 2014, displayed an incorrect RIN number. This document advises of the correct RIN number, 2501-AD66, which is also shown above in the heading of this document.
Effective April 7, 2015.
Aaron Santa Anna, Assistant General Counsel for Regulations, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10282, Washington, DC 20410-0500; telephone number 202-708-1793 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired persons may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).
On December 19, 2014 (79 FR 75867), the Office of Management and Budget published a joint, governmentwide interim rule of all Federal award-making agencies entitled, “Federal Awarding Agency Regulatory Implementation of Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.” In the joint, governmentwide interim rule, HUD added 2 CFR 2400.101 and amended 24 CFR parts 84 and 85 by removing all substantive provisions and retaining in each part only a cross reference to 2 CFR 2400.101 and a savings provision. The heading for HUD's portion of the governmentwide joint interim rule inadvertently displayed RIN number 2501-AD54, which is incorrect. The correct RIN number for HUD's portion of the governmentwide joint interim rule is 2501-AD66, and this document advises of the correction.
In FR Doc. 2014-28697 appearing on page 75871 in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; technical amendment.
This action makes minor corrections to the boundary descriptions of restricted areas R-6703A, R-6703B, R-6703C, R-6703D, R-6703E and R-6703F at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA. The changes are required due to a typographical error that occurred during publication of the final rule in the
Effective date 0901 UTC, May 7, 2015.
Jason Stahl, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, AJV-11, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
In a final rule published in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 to make minor updates to certain latitude/longitude coordinates in the descriptions of restricted areas R-6703A, R-6703B, R-6703C, R-6703D, R-6703E and R-6703F at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA. The changes are to correct a typographical error of the symbol depicting minutes of arc in the publication of the original rule.
R-6703A: The text “Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47°03″ 07″ N., long. 122°41″ 09″ W.; to lat. 47°04″ 34″ N., long. 122°41″ 09″ W.; to lat. 47°04″ 41″ N., long. 122°38″ 19″ W.; to lat. 47°03″ 37″ N., long. 122°35″ 40″ W.; to lat. 47°03″ 15″ N., long. 122°35″ 48″ W.; to lat. 47°03″ 06″ N., long. 122°36″ 51″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 02″ N., long. 122°37″ 33″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 06″ N., long. 122°38″ 33″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 14″ N., long. 122°38″ 53″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 19″ N., long. 122°39″ 14″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 19″ N., long. 122°39″ 37″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 21″ N., long. 122°40″ 17″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 38″ N., long. 122°40″ 39.″ W.; thence via the Nisqually River to the point of beginning.” is replaced with “Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47°03′ 07″ N., long. 122°41′ 09″ N.; to lat. 47°04′ 34″ N., long. 122°41′ 09″ N.; to lat. 47°04′ 41″ N., long. 122°38′ 19″ N.;
R-6703B: The text ”Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47°01″ 32″ N., long. 122°36″ 28″ W.; to lat. 47°01″ 32″ N., long. 122°36″ 51″ W.; to lat. 47°01″ 42″ N., long. 122°37″ 12″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 02″ N., long. 122°37″ 33.″ W.; to lat. 47°03″ 06″ N., long. 122°36″ 51″ W.; to lat. 47°03″ 15″ N., long. 122°35″ 48″ W.; to the point of beginning.” is replaced with “Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47°01′32″ N., long. 122°36′28″ W.; to lat. 47°01′32″ N., long. 122°36′51″ W.; to lat. 47°01′42″ N., long. 122°37′12″ W.; to lat. 47°02′02″ N., long. 122°37′33″ W.; to lat. 47°03′06″ N., long. 122°36′51″ W.; to lat. 47°03′15″ N., long. 122°35′48″ W.; to the point of beginning.”
R-6703C: The text “Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 46°59″ 19″ N., long. 122°37″ 19″ W.; to lat. 46°59″ 15″ N., long. 122°37″ 56″ W.; Thence via the Nisqually River to lat. 47°00″ 32″ N., long. 122°38″ 59″ W.; to lat. 47°00″ 47″ N., long. 122°39″ 04″ W.; to lat. 47°00″ 57″ N., long. 122°39″ 20″ W.; to lat. 47°01″ 10″ N., long. 122°39″ 26″ W.; to lat. 47°01″ 22″ N., long. 122°39″ 45″ W.; to lat. 47°01″ 42″ N., long. 122°39″ 49″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 00″ N., long. 122°39″ 59″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 21″ N., long. 122°40″ 17″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 19″ N., long. 122°39″ 37″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 19″ N., long. 122°39″ 14″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 14″ N., long. 122°38″ 53″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 06″ N., long. 122°38″ 33″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 02″ N., long. 122°37″ 33″ W.; to lat. 47°01″ 42″ N., long. 122°37″ 12″ W.; to lat. 47°01″ 32″ N., long. 122°36″ 51″ W.; to lat. 47°01″ 32″ N., long. 122°36″ 28″ W.; to the point of beginning.” is replaced with “Beginning at lat. 46°59′19″ N., long. 122°37′19″ W.; to lat. 46°59′15″ N., long. 122°37′56″ W.; Thence via the Nisqually River to lat. 47°00′32″ N., long. 122°38′59″ W.; to lat. 47°00′47″ N., long. 122°39′04″ W.; to lat. 47°00′57″ N., long. 122°39′20″ W.; to lat. 47°01′10″ N., long. 122°39′26″ W.; to lat. 47°01′22″ N., long. 122°39′45″ W.; to lat. 47°01′42″ N., long. 122°39′49″ W.; to lat. 47°02′00″ N., long. 122°39′59″ W.; to lat. 47°02′21″ N., long. 122°40′17″ W.; to lat. 47°02′19″ N., long. 122°39′37″ W.; to lat. 47°02′19″ N., long. 122°39′14″ W.; to lat. 47°02′14″ N., long. 122°38′53′ W.; to lat. 47°02′06″ N., long. 122°38′33″ W.; to lat. 47°02′02″ N., long. 122°37′33″ W.; to lat. 47°01′42″ N., long. 122°37′12″ W.; to lat. 47°01′32″ N., long. 122°36′51″ W.; to lat. 47°01′32″ N., long. 122°36′28″ W.; to the point of beginning.”
R-6703D: The text “Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 46°57″ 11″ N., long. 122°38″ 51″ W.; to lat. 46°57″ 12″ N., long. 122°43″ 42″ W.; to lat. 47°03″ 07″ N., long. 122°41″ 09″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 56″ N., long. 122°40″ 49″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 41″ N., long. 122°40″ 48″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 38″ N., long. 122°40″ 39″ W., to lat. 47°02″ 21″ N,. long. 122°40″ 17″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 00″ N., long. 122°39″ 59″ W.; to lat. 47°01″ 42″ N., long. 122°39″ 49″ W.; to lat. 47°01″ 22″ N., long. 122°39″ 45″ W.; to lat. 47°01″ 10″ N., long. 122°39″ 26″ W.; to lat. 47°00″ 57″ N., long. 122°39″ 20″ W.; to lat. 47°00″ 47″ N., long. 122°39″ 04″ W.; to lat. 47°00″ 32″ N., long. 122°38″ 59″ W.; thence via the Nisqually River to lat. 46°59″ 15″ N., long. 122°37″ 56″ W.; to lat. 46°59″ 19″ N., long. 122°37″ 19″ W.; to lat. 46°58″ 16″ N., long. 122°37″ 44″ W.; to the point of beginning.” is replaced with “Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 46°57′11″ N., long. 122°38′51″ W.; to lat. 46°57′12″ N., long. 122°43′42″ W.; to lat. 47°03′07″ N., long. 122°41′09″ W.; to lat. 47°02′56″ N., long. 122°40′49″ W.; to lat. 47°02′41″ N., long. 122°40′48″ W.; to lat. 47°02′38″ N., long. 122°40′39″ W., to lat. 47°02′21″ N,. long. 122°40′17″ W.; to lat. 47°02′00″ N., long. 122°39′59″ W.; to lat. 47°01′42″ N., long. 122°39′49″ W.; to lat. 47°01′22″ N., long. 122°39′45″ W.; to lat. 47°01′10″ N., long. 122°39′26″ W.; to lat. 47°00′57″ N., long. 122°39′20″ W.; to lat. 47°00′47″ N., long. 122°39′04″ W.; to lat. 47°00′32″ N., long. 122°38′59″ W.; thence via the Nisqually River to lat. 46°59′15″ N., long. 122°37′56″ W.; to lat. 46°59′19″ N., long. 122°37′19″ W.; to lat. 46°58′16″ N., long. 122°37′44″ W.; to the point of beginning.”
R-6703D: The text “Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 46°57″ 11″ N., long. 122°38″ 51″ W.; to lat. 46°57″ 12″ N., long. 122°43″ 42″ W.; to lat. 47°03″ 07″ N., long. 122°41″ 09″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 56″ N., long. 122°40″ 49″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 41″ N., long. 122°40″ 48″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 38″ N., long. 122°40″ 39″ W., to lat. 47°02″ 21″ N,. long. 122°40″ 17″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 00″ N., long. 122°39″ 59″ W.; to lat. 47°01″ 42″ N., long. 122°39″ 49″ W.; to lat. 47°01″ 22″ N., long. 122°39″ 45″ W.; to lat. 47°01″ 10″ N., long. 122°39″ 26″ W.; to lat. 47°00″ 57″ N., long. 122°39″ 20″ W.; to lat. 47°00″ 47″ N., long. 122°39″ 04″ W.; to lat. 47°00″ 32″ N., long. 122°38″ 59″ W.; thence via the Nisqually River to lat. 46°59″ 15″ N., long. 122°37″ 56″ W.; to lat. 46°59″ 19″ N., long. 122°37″ 19″ W.; to lat. 46°58″ 16″ N., long. 122°37″ 44″ W.; to the point of beginning.” is replaced with “Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 46°57′11″ N., long. 122°38′51″ W.; to lat. 46°57′12″ N., long. 122°43′42″ W.; to lat. 47°03′07″ N., long. 122°41′09″ W.; to lat. 47°02′56″ N., long. 122°40′49″ W.; to lat. 47°02′41″ N., long. 122°40′48″ W.; to lat. 47°02′38″ N., long. 122°40′39″ W., to lat. 47°02′21″ N,. long. 122°40′17″ W.; to lat. 47°02′00″ N., long. 122°39′59″ W.; to lat. 47°01′42″ N., long. 122°39′49″ W.; to lat. 47°01′22″ N., long. 122°39′45″ W.; to lat. 47°01′10″ N., long. 122°39′26″ W.; to lat. 47°00′57″ N., long. 122°39′20″ W.; to lat. 47°00′47″ N., long. 122°39′04″ W.; to lat. 47°00′32″ N., long. 122°38′59″ W.; thence via the Nisqually River to lat. 46°59′15″ N., long. 122°37′56″ W.; to lat. 46°59′19″ N., long. 122°37′19″ W.; to lat. 46°58′16″ N., long. 122°37′44″ W.; to the point of beginning.”
R-6703E: The text “Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 46°57″ 11″ N., long. 122°38″ 51″ W.; to lat. 46°54″ 34″ N., long. 122°41″ 29″ W.; to lat. 46°54″ 17″ N., long. 122°43″ 36″ W.; to lat. 46°55″ 11″ N., long. 122°44″ 34″ W.; to lat. 46°57″ 12″ N., long. 122°43″ 42″ W.; to the point of beginning.” is replaced with “Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 46°57′11″ N., long. 122°38′51″ W.; to lat. 46°54′34″ N., long. 122°41′29″ W.; to lat. 46°54′17″ N., long. 122°43′36″ W.; to lat. 46°55′11″ N., long. 122°44′34″ W.; to lat. 46°57′12″ N., long. 122°43′42″ W.; to the point of beginning.”
R-6703F: The text “Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47°01″ 32″ N., long. 122°36″ 28″ W.; to lat. 47°03″ 37″ N., long. 122°35″ 40″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 47″ N., long. 122°33″ 40″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 43″ N., long. 122°34″ 06″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 26″ N., long. 122°34″ 22″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 08″ N., long. 122°34″ 38″ W.; to lat. 47°02″ 02″ N., long. 122°34″ 52″ W.; to lat. 47°01″ 57″ N., long. 122°35″ 05″ W.; to lat. 47°01″ 37″ N., long. 122°35″ 37″ W.; to lat. 47°01″ 32″ N., long. 122°36″ 05″ W.; to the point of beginning.” is replaced with “Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47°01′32″ N., long. 122°36′28″ W.; to lat. 47°03′37″ N., long. 122°35′40″ W.; to lat. 47°02′47″ N., long. 122°33′40″ W.; to lat. 47°02′43″ N., long. 122°34′06″ W.; to lat. 47°02′26″ N., long. 122°34′22″ W.; to lat. 47°02′08″ N., long. 122°34′38″ W.; to lat. 47°02′02″ N., long. 122°34′52″ W.; to lat. 47°01′57″ N., long. 122°35′05″ W.; to lat. 47°01′37″ N., long. 122°35′37″ W.; to lat. 47°01′32″ N., long. 122°36′05″ W.; to the point of beginning.”
This amendment consists of minor editorial changes to correct a typographical error in the geographic coordinates. It does not affect the location, designated altitudes, or activities conducted within the restricted areas; therefore, notice and
The FAA has determined that this action only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the descriptions of certain Restricted areas at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA, correcting typographical errors.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with 311d, FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. This airspace action is a minor editorial change to the descriptions of restricted areas R-6703A, R-6703B, R-6703C, R-6703D, R-6703E and R-6703F at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA., to correct a typographical error in the geographic coordinates. It does not alter the location, altitudes, or activities conducted within the airspace; therefore, it is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exists that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
By removing the current boundaries and adding in its place the following:
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47°03′ 07″ N., long. 122°41′ 09″ N.; to lat. 47°04′34″ N., long. 122°41′09″ N.; to lat. 47°04′41″ N., long. 122°38′19″ N.; to lat. 47°03′37″ N., long. 122°35′40″ N.; to lat. 47°03′15″ N., long. 122°35′48″ N.; to lat. 47°03′06″ N., long. 122°36′51″ N.; to lat. 47°02′02″ N., long. 122°37′33″ N.; to lat. 47°02′06″ N., long. 122°38′33″ N.; to lat. 47°02′14″ N., long. 122°38′53″ N.; to lat. 47°02′19″ N., long. 122°39′14″ N.; to lat. 47°02′19″ N., long. 122°39′37″ N.; to lat. 47°02′21″ N., long. 122°40′17″ N.; to lat. 47°02′38″ N., long. 122°40′39″ N.; thence via the Nisqually River to the point of beginning.
* * *
By removing the current boundaries and adding in its place the following:
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47°01′32″ N., long. 122°36′28” W.; to lat. 47°01′32″ N., long. 122°36′51″ W.; to lat. 47°01′42″ N., long. 122°37′12″ W.; to lat. 47°02′02″ N., long. 122°37′33″ W.; to lat. 47°03′06″ N., long. 122°36′51″ W.; to lat. 47°03′15″ N., long. 122°35′48″ W.; to the point of beginning.
* * *
By removing the current boundaries and adding in its place the following:
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 46°59′19″ N., long. 122°37′19″ W.; to lat. 46°59′15″ N., long. 122°37′56″ W.; Thence via the Nisqually River to lat. 47°00′32″ N., long. 122°38′59″ W.; to lat. 47°00′47″ N., long. 122°39′04″ W.; to lat. 47°00′57″ N., long. 122°39′20″ W.; to lat. 47°01′10″ N., long. 122°39′26″ W.; to lat. 47°01′22″ N., long. 122°39′45″ W.; to lat. 47°01′42″ N., long. 122°39′49″ W.; to lat. 47°02′00″ N., long. 122°39′59″ W.; to lat. 47°02′21″ N., long. 122°40′17″ W.; to lat. 47°02′19″ N., long. 122°39′37″ W.; to lat. 47°02′19″ N., long. 122°39′14″ W.; to lat. 47°02′14″ N., long. 122°38′53′ W.; to lat. 47°02′06″ N., long. 122°38′33″ W.; to lat. 47°02′02″ N., long. 122°37′33″ W.; to lat. 47°01′42″ N., long. 122°37′12″ W.; to lat. 47°01′32″ N., long. 122°36′51″ W.; to lat. 47°01′32″ N., long. 122°36′28″ W.; to the point of beginning.
* * *
By removing the current boundaries and adding in its place the following:
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 46°57′11″ N., long. 122°38′51″ W.; to lat. 46°57′12″ N., long. 122°43′42″ W.; to lat. 47°03′07″ N., long. 122°41′09″ W.; to lat. 47°02′56″ N., long. 122°40′49″ W.; to lat. 47°02′41″ N., long. 122°40′48″ W.; to lat. 47°02′38″ N., long. 122°40′39″ W., to lat. 47°02′21″ N,. long. 122°40′17″ W.; to lat. 47°02′00″ N., long. 122°39′59″ W.; to lat. 47°01′42″ N., long. 122°39′49″ W.; to lat. 47°01′22″ N., long. 122°39′45″ W.; to lat. 47°01′10″ N., long. 122°39′26″ W.; to lat. 47°00′57″ N., long. 122°39′20″ W.; to lat. 47°00′47″ N., long. 122°39′04″ W.; to lat. 47°00′32″ N., long. 122°38′59″ W.; thence via the Nisqually River to lat. 46°59′15″ N., long. 122°37′56″ W.; to lat. 46°59′19″ N., long. 122°37′19″ W.; to lat. 46°58′16″ N., long. 122°37′44″ W.; to the point of beginning.
* * *
By removing the current boundaries and adding in its place the following:
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 46°57′11″ N., long. 122°38′51″ W.; to lat. 46°54′34″ N., long. 122°41′29″ W.; to lat. 46°54′17″ N., long. 122°43′36″ W.; to lat. 46°55′11″ N., long. 122°44′34″ W.; to lat. 46°57′12″ N., long. 122°43′42″ W.; to the point of beginning.
* * *
By removing the current boundaries and adding in its place the following:
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47°01′32″ N., long. 122°36′28″ W.; to lat. 47°03′37″ N., long. 122°35′40″ W.; to lat. 47°02′47″ N., long. 122°33′40″ W.; to lat. 47°02′43″ N., long. 122°34′06″ W.; to lat. 47°02′26″ N., long. 122°34′22″ W.; to lat. 47°02′08″ N., long. 122°34′38″ W.; to lat. 47°02′02″ N., long. 122°34′52″ W.; to lat. 47°01′57″ N., long. 122°35′05″ W.; to lat. 47°01′37″ N., long. 122°35′37″ W.; to lat. 47°01′32″ N., long. 122°36′05″ W.; to the point of beginning.
* * *
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to reflect changes to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Annex that were agreed to by MTCR member countries at the September and October 2014 Plenary in Oslo, Norway, and pursuant to the 2014 Technical Experts Meeting in Prague, Czech Republic. This rule also makes conforming changes to correlate the Commerce Control List (CCL) (Supplement No. 1 to Part 774 of the EAR) with the current MTCR Annex. This final rule revises six Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) to implement the changes that were agreed to at the meetings and to better align the MT controls on the CCL with the MTCR Annex.
This rule is effective April 7, 2015.
Sharon Bragonje, Nuclear and Missile Technology Controls Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Phone: (202) 482-0434; Email:
The MTCR is an export control arrangement among 34 nations, including most of the world's suppliers of advanced missiles and missile-related equipment, materials, software and technology. The regime establishes a common list of controlled items (the Annex) and a common export control policy (the Guidelines) that member countries implement in accordance with their national export controls. The MTCR seeks to limit the risk of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by controlling exports of goods and technologies that could make a contribution to delivery systems (other than manned aircraft) for such weapons.
In 1992, the MTCR's original focus on missiles for nuclear weapons delivery was expanded to include the proliferation of missiles for the delivery of all types of weapons of mass destruction (WMD),
This final rule revises the EAR to reflect changes to the MTCR Annex agreed to at the September and October 2014 Plenary in Oslo, Norway and pursuant to the 2014 Technical Experts Meeting in Prague, Czech Republic. Corresponding MTCR Annex references are provided below for the MTCR Annex changes agreed to at the meetings. This rule also makes three conforming changes to correlate the Commerce Control List (CCL) (Supplement No. 1 to Part 774 of the EAR) with the current MTCR Annex. These conforming changes are made to better align the MT controls on the CCL with the MTCR Annex. In the explanation below for the revisions made in this rule, BIS identifies these changes as follows: “Oslo 2014 Plenary,” “Prague 2014 TEM,” and “CCL Conforming Change to MTCR Annex” to assist the public in understanding the origin of each change included in this final rule.
Specifically, the following six ECCNs are affected by the changes set forth in this final rule:
Also in ECCN 9A106, this final rule revises the Note to paragraph d to delete the term “and” in the introductory text and to add the phrase “and gas turbines” after the term “pumps” to clarify only servo valves, pumps and gas turbines that are specified under paragraphs a, b or c are classified under 9A106.d. In addition, this final rule clarifies the scope of the Note to paragraph d by adding the phrase “at the maximum operating mode” after the control parameter 8,000 rpm to add greater specificity for how to apply this control parameter. Lastly, this final rule adds a new paragraph c to the Note to paragraph d to specify that gas turbines, for liquid propellant turbopumps, with shaft speeds equal to or greater than 8,000 rpm at the maximum operating mode are also controlled under 9A106.d. The changes will result in an expansion of the control parameter, so this change is expected to result in an increase of 1-2 applications received annually by BIS.
Shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were on dock for loading, on lighter, laden aboard an exporting or reexporting carrier, or enroute aboard a carrier to a port of export or reexport, on April 7, 2015, pursuant to actual orders for export or reexport to a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport without a license (NLR) so long as they are exported or reexported before May 7, 2015. Any such items not actually exported or reexported before midnight, on May 7, 2015, require a license in accordance with this rule.
Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of August 7, 2014, 79 FR 46959 (August 11, 2014),
1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distribute impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person may be required to respond to or be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under E.O. 13132.
4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military and foreign affairs function of the United States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). Immediate implementation of these amendments fulfills the United States' international commitments to the MTCR. The MTCR contributes to international peace and security by promoting greater responsibility in transfers of missile technology items that could make a contribution to delivery systems (other than manned aircraft) for weapons of mass destruction. The MTCR consists of 34 member countries that act on a consensus basis and the changes set forth in this rule implement agreements reached by MTCR member countries at the September and October 2014 Plenary in Oslo, Norway and at the 2014 Technical Experts Meeting in Prague, Czech Republic Since the United States is a significant exporter of the items in this rule, implementation of this provision is necessary for the MTCR to achieve its purpose. Moreover, it is in the public interest to waive the notice and comment requirements, as any delay in implementing this rule will disrupt the movement of affected items globally because of disharmony between export control measures implemented by MTCR members. Export controls work best when all countries implement the same export controls in a timely manner. If this rulemaking were delayed to allow for notice and comment and a 30 day delay in effectiveness, it would prevent the United States from fulfilling its commitment to the MTCR in a timely manner, would injure the credibility of the United States in this and other multilateral regimes, and may impair the international communities' ability to effectively control the export of certain potentially national- and international-security-threatening materials.
Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, part 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
a. * * *
a.1. Spherical or spheroidal aluminum powder (C.A.S. 7429-90-5) in particle size of less than 200 × 10
b. * * *
b.5. * * *
d. * * *
d.7. N,N diallylhydrazine (CAS 5164-11-4);
d.14. Hydrazinium dinitrate (CAS 13464-98-7);
d.18. Methylhydrazine nitrate (MHN) (CAS 29674-96-2);
a. * * *
a.2.a. Analog-to-digital converter microcircuits which are radiation-hardened or have all of the following characteristics:
a.2.a.1. Rated for operation in the temperature range from below −54°C to above +125°C;
a.2.a.2. Hermetically sealed;
a.2.b. Electrical input type analog-to-digital converter printed circuit boards or modules, having all of the following characteristics:
a.2.b.1. Rated for operation in the temperature range from below −45°C to above +80°C;
a.2.b.2. Incorporating microcircuits identified in 3A101.a.2 .a;
d. Liquid, slurry and gel propellant (including oxidizers) control systems, and “specially designed” “parts” and “components” therefor, designed or modified to operate in vibration environments greater than 10 g rms between 20 Hz and 2000 Hz.
f. Composite structures, laminates and manufactures thereof “specially designed” for the following items controlled under USML Category IV:
f.1. Systems capable of a range equal to or greater than 300 km;
f.2. Individual rocket stages usable in 9A604.f.1. systems;
f.3. Solid propellant rocket motors or hybrid rocket motors having a total impulse capacity equal to or greater than 8.41 × 10
f.4. Liquid propellant rocket engines integrated, or designed or modified to be integrated, into a liquid propellant propulsion system which has a total impulse capacity equal to or greater than 8.41 × 10
f.5. Thrust vector control systems usable in rockets, space launch vehicles (SLVs), and missiles capable of delivering at least a 500 kg payload to a range of at least 300 km.
f.6. Re-entry vehicles or warhead heat shields usable in rockets, SLVs, and missiles capable of delivering at least a 500 kg payload to a range of at least 300 km.
f.7. Safing, arming, fuzing, and firing components usable in rockets, SLVs, and missiles capable of delivering at least a 500 kg payload to a range of at least 300 km.
t. Composite structures, laminates and manufactures thereof “specially designed” for unmanned aerial vehicles controlled under USML Category VIII(a) with a range equal to or greater than 300 km.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Correcting amendments.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission published a document in the
Effective April 7, 2015.
Norman Richardson, Financial Management Division, Office of the Executive Director, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6219,
This is a summary of FERC's Errata Notice, issued on March 30, 2015.
On January 8, 2015, the Commission issued a Final Rule in the above-captioned proceeding.
Public lands.
Accordingly, 18 CFR part 11 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
16 U.S.C. 792-828c; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to partially approve the May 22, 2014, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal from Idaho to revise the SIP to update the incorporation by reference of Federal air quality regulations into the SIP. The EPA is also taking final action to partially disapprove Idaho's incorporation by reference of certain provisions of the Federal prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting rules that have been vacated by a Federal Court. As a result of this action, the Idaho SIP is updated to incorporate by reference certain Federal regulations as of July 1, 2013.
This final rule is effective on May 7, 2015.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0477. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Donna Deneen at (206) 553-6706,
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
In a notice of proposed rulemaking published on January 7, 2015 (80 FR 834), the EPA proposed action on revisions to the Idaho SIP to account for regulatory updates adopted by the Idaho Board of Environmental Quality on October 17, 2013 and submitted to the EPA on May 22, 2014. Please see our January 7, 2015, proposed rulemaking for further explanation of the revisions and the basis for our proposal to partially approve and partially disapprove the May 22, 2014, SIP submittal from Idaho. The public
Consistent with the discussion and analysis in the proposed rulemaking published on January 7, 2015, the EPA is partially approving and incorporating by reference the May 22, 2014, submittal from Idaho. Specifically, we are approving and incorporating by reference the revisions to IDAPA 58.01.01.107.02 “Availability of Reference Materials” and IDAPA 58.01.01.107.03 “Incorporations by Reference,” except that we are partially disapproving the revision to IDAPA 58.01.01.107.03(c) as it relates to the incorporation by reference of specific vacated provisions at 40 CFR 52.21 (namely, 40 CFR 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2)) for the reasons discussed in the proposal. This action updates the Idaho SIP to incorporate by reference certain Federal regulations as of July 1, 2013.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 8, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(a) The State of Idaho Rules for Control of Air Pollution in Idaho, specifically, IDAPA 58.01.01.005 through 007 (definitions), IDAPA 58.01.01.107.03(a), (b), (c) (incorporations by reference)(except, with respect to Section 107.03(c), its incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.21(i)(5)(i)(
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to reclassify the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Moderate nonattainment area, including areas of Indian country within it, as a Serious nonattainment area for the 1997 PM
This rule is effective on May 7, 2015.
The index to the docket (docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0813) for this action is available electronically on the
Anita Lee, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (415) 972-3958,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
On January 12, 2015 (80 FR 1482), EPA proposed to reclassify the SJV nonattainment area, including areas of Indian country within it, from Moderate nonattainment to Serious nonattainment for the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM
In our proposed rule, EPA identified the additional SIP revisions that California would, upon reclassification, have to submit to satisfy the statutory requirements that apply to Serious areas, including the requirements of subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act.
With respect to the nonattainment new source review (NNSR) program revisions to establish appropriate “major stationary source” thresholds for direct PM
EPA received one comment letter on our proposed action. The comment letter was submitted by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (“SJVAPCD” or “District”) on February 11, 2015, prior to the close of the comment period on our proposal.
Comment: The SJVAPCD expresses support for EPA's proposed 12-month timeframe for California's submission of the required NNSR SIP revisions but objects to EPA's statement indicating that, to obtain an extension of the attainment date under CAA section 188(e), the state must submit these NNSR revisions “in time for EPA to approve such an extension prior to the December 31, 2015 Serious area attainment date.” The District asserts that EPA “provides no valid justification for this requirement” and that section 188(e) of the Act contains “no mention of NSR, either directly or by implication, that would lead one to believe that the updated NSR rule is required prior to approval of the attainment deadline extension.” The District contends that delays in EPA's regulatory actions related to implementation of the 1997 PM
In sum, the District asserts that EPA is asking the District to begin an expedited process to adopt a serious area NSR rule before the area is reclassified as a Serious area and without implementation rules or guidance. The SJVAPCD requests that EPA decide in the final rule to require the District to submit a revised NNSR rule within 12 months after EPA's final reclassification action and also to decide that “such an NSR rule adoption deadline does not interfere with EPA's ability to approve an attainment deadline extension under 188(e).”
Response: As a preliminary matter, EPA notes that nothing in the CAA requires the Agency to promulgate any implementation rules or guidance with respect to implementation of the 1997 PM
Upon further consideration of this question, however, EPA has determined that the specific factual circumstances in this instance justify the 12 months sought by SJVAPCD for the submission of the NNSR revisions. Accordingly, we are finalizing our proposal to require that California adopt and submit NNSR SIP revisions to implement the subpart 4 requirements for Serious PM
Under section 188(e) of the Act, a state may apply to EPA for a single extension of the Serious area attainment date by up to 5 years, which EPA may grant if the State satisfies certain conditions. Before EPA may extend the attainment date for a Serious area under section 188(e), the state must: (1) Apply for an extension of the attainment date beyond the statutory attainment date; (2) demonstrate that attainment by the statutory attainment date is impracticable; (3) have complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the implementation plan; (4) demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the plan for the area includes the most stringent measures that are included in the implementation plan of any State or are achieved in practice in any State, and can feasibly be implemented in the area; and (5) submit a demonstration of attainment by the most expeditious alternative date practicable.
As a result of today's reclassification of the SJV as Serious nonattainment for the 1997 PM
EPA has recently issued a new proposed rulemaking to implement the PM
In accordance with section 188(b)(1) of the Act, EPA is taking final action to reclassify the SJV area from Moderate to Serious nonattainment for the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM
Under section 188(c)(2) of the Act, the attainment date for a Serious area “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 SJV area was designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM
Eight Indian tribes are located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley PM
We have considered the relevance of our final action to reclassify the SJV nonattainment area as Serious for the 1997 PM
The effect of reclassification would be to lower the applicable “major stationary source” emissions thresholds for direct PM
Given the potential implications of the reclassification, EPA contacted tribal officials to invite government-to-government consultation on this rulemaking effort.
As a consequence of our reclassification of the SJV area as a Serious nonattainment area for the 1997 PM
The Serious area SIP elements that California must submit are as follows:
1. Provisions to assure that the best available control measures (BACM), including best available control technology (BACT) for stationary sources, for the control of direct PM
2. A demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31, 2015, or where the State is seeking an extension of the attainment date under section 188(e), a demonstration that attainment by December 31, 2015 is impracticable and that the plan provides for attainment by the most expeditious alternative date practicable (CAA sections 188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A));
3. Plan provisions that require reasonable further progress (RFP) (CAA section 172(c)(2));
4. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years until the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrate RFP toward attainment by the applicable date (CAA section 189(c));
5. Provisions to assure that control requirements applicable to major stationary sources of PM
6. A comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of PM
7. Contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to meet RFP or to attain by the applicable attainment date (CAA section 172(c)(9)); and
8. A revision to the NNSR program to establish appropriate “major stationary source”
Section 189(b)(2) states, in relevant part, that the State must submit the required BACM provisions “no later than 18 months after reclassification of the area as a Serious Area” and must submit the required attainment demonstration “no later than 4 years after reclassification of the area to Serious.” Thus, the Act provides the State with up to 18 months after the effective date of this reclassification (
Additionally, in light of the available ambient air quality data and the short amount of time available before the December 31, 2015 attainment date under CAA section 188(c)(2), EPA anticipates that California may choose to submit a request for an extension of the Serious area attainment date pursuant to section 188(e) simultaneously with its submittal of a Serious area plan for the area. If California fails to submit a request for an extension of the Serious area attainment date that satisfies the requirements of section 188(e) and the SJV area fails to attain the 1997 PM
Given the short amount of time available for California's development of these SIP submittals, EPA anticipates that the Serious area attainment demonstration for the SJV area may rely to some extent on existing photochemical modeling analyses developed for previous PM
Finally, for the reasons provided in our proposed rule
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) because it relates to a designation of an area for air quality purposes and will reclassify the SJV from its current air quality designation of Moderate nonattainment to Serious nonattainment for the 1997 PM
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This action does not contain any information collection activities.
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. The final rule requires the state to adopt and submit SIP revisions to satisfy the statutory requirements that apply to Serious areas, and would not itself directly regulate any small entities (
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million or more and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538). This action itself imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. The final action reclassifies the SJV nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment for the 1997 PM
This action does not have federalism implications.
This action may have tribal implications. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. Eight Indian tribes are located within the boundaries of the SJV nonattainment area for the 1997 PM
Given these potential implications, consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, EPA contacted tribal officials early in the process of developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. EPA invited tribal officials to consult during the development of the proposed rule and following signature of the proposed rule. As discussed in more detail in our proposed action, we sent letters to leaders of the tribes with areas of Indian country in the SJV nonattainment area inviting government-to-government consultation on the rulemaking effort. On February 17, 2015, EPA received a letter dated January 30, 2015 from the Tejon Tribe expressing an interest in developing a better understanding of, among other things, the effect of the reclassification on air quality. EPA invited the Tejon Tribe to participate in a conference call during the week of February 23, 2015, and EPA staff subsequently had preliminary conversations about this action with the Tribe but has not yet received confirmation of a request to schedule a conference call. No other Indian tribe has expressed an interest in discussing this action with EPA. We continue to invite Indian tribes in the SJV to contact EPA with any questions about the effects of this reclassification on tribal interests and air quality.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that 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 reclassifies the SJV nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment for the 1997 PM
This final action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action is not subject to the requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because it does not involve technical standards.
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. This action reclassifies the SJV nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment for the 1997 PM
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 8, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) By May 7, 2016, the New Source Review rules for PM
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions read as follows:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is establishing air quality designations in the United States (U.S.) for the 2012 primary annual fine particle (PM
This final rule is effective on April 15, 2015.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0918. All documents in the docket are listed in the
In addition, the EPA has established a Web site for these rulemakings at:
For general questions concerning this action, please contact Andy Chang, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Planning Division, C539-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-2416, email at
The public may inspect the rule and state-specific technical support information at the following locations:
The following is an outline of the Preamble.
On December 14, 2012, the EPA promulgated a revised primary annual PM
Section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7407(d), governs the process for initial area designations after the EPA establishes a new or revised NAAQS. Under section 107(d), each governor is required to, and each tribal leader may, if they so choose,
On December 18, 2014, the Administrator of the EPA signed a final action promulgating initial designations for the 2012 PM
The EPA's January 15, 2015, rulemaking also described a process by which the EPA would evaluate any complete, quality-assured, certified air quality monitoring data from 2014 that a state submitted for consideration before February 27, 2015 (80 FR 2209). The EPA stated that it would evaluate whether, with the inclusion of certified 2014 data, the 3-year design value for 2012-2014 suggests that a change in the initial designation would be appropriate for an area. If the EPA agreed that a change in the initial designation would be appropriate, the EPA would withdraw the designation announced in the January 15, 2015, action for such area before the effective date and issue another designation reflecting the inclusion of 2014 data (80 FR 2209).
The purposes of this action are to: announce and promulgate initial area designations of unclassifiable/attainment for the 2012 PM
In this action, the EPA is designating five areas as unclassifiable/attainment in the state of Georgia, and two neighboring counties in the bordering states of Alabama and South Carolina, all of which were initially deferred in the EPA's January 15, 2015, rulemaking: Augusta (Richmond County and Columbia County in Georgia and Aiken County in South Carolina); Columbus (Muscogee County in Georgia and Russell County in Alabama); Savannah, Georgia (Chatham County and Effingham County); Valdosta, Georgia (Brooks County and Lowndes County); and Washington County, Georgia. The EPA's January 15, 2015, rulemaking stated that with respect to deferred areas, the EPA would use the additional time available as provided under section 107(d)(1)(B) of the CAA to assess relevant information and subsequently promulgate initial designations for the identified areas through separate rulemaking action or actions (80 FR 2207).
In the January 15, 2015, action, the EPA stated that for areas deferred due to lack of sufficient data, the agency would evaluate any complete, quality-assured, certified air quality monitoring data from 2014 that a state submitted for consideration before February 27, 2015 (80 FR 2210). The states of Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina each submitted to the EPA complete, quality-assured, and certified air quality monitoring data from 2014 for five deferred areas by the prescribed deadline. These data provide the EPA with sufficient information to promulgate initial designations for these five areas. Specifically, the EPA is designating these five areas as unclassifiable/attainment because the 2014 air quality data collected in these states and submitted to the EPA indicate that the areas are attaining the 2012 PM
Based on complete, quality-assured, and certified air quality monitoring data from 2014 submitted to the EPA by several states prior to the February 27, 2015, deadline prescribed in the January 15, 2015, rulemaking, the EPA is changing the initial designation status for five areas. As noted in the Background section of this preamble, the EPA established a process in the January 15, 2015, rulemaking for considering 2014 air quality data in the event that such data would change the initial designation for an area. In cases where we agree that a change in the initial designation would be appropriate, the EPA would withdraw the designation announced in the January 15, 2015, action for such area before the effective date of April 15, 2015, and issue another designation reflecting the inclusion of 2014 data.
Pursuant to this process, the EPA is changing the initial designation of the following five areas for the 2012 PM
Procedurally, these changes in initial designations are consistent with our early data certification and evaluation process, as described earlier and in the January 15, 2015, rulemaking. The states of Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania submitted complete, quality-assured, and certified air quality monitoring data from 2014 to the EPA by the prescribed deadline. With the inclusion of the 2014 data that was submitted for each monitor, the 3-year design values for 2012—2014 justify changing the initial designation for these areas with respect to the 2012 PM
The tables at the end of this final rule (amendments to 40 CFR 81.301—Alabama, 40 CFR 81.311—Georgia, 40 CFR 81.315—Indiana, 40 CFR 81.318—Kentucky, 40 CFR 81.336—Ohio, 40 CFR 31.339—Pennsylvania and 40 CFR 81.341—South Carolina) list all areas for which the EPA is changing the initial designation in each impacted state. This action does not impact any areas of Indian country.
Subsequent to promulgation of the initial designations, the EPA agreed with Ohio's request in the 2015 AAMP to exempt AQS site ID 36-017-0020 in Butler County, Ohio from comparison to the 2012 PM
This rulemaking also promulgates a minor technical amendment to correct an inadvertent error in the designation listing for Allegheny County in the state of Pennsylvania. This technical amendment clarifies that the entirety of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania is designated nonattainment. In the rule
The CAA requires the EPA to determine through a designation process whether an area meets or does not meet any new or revised national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard. This action includes initial designation determinations for several areas of the U.S. for the 2012 annual PM
This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget because it responds to the CAA requirement to promulgate air quality designations after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This action fulfills the non-discretionary duty for the EPA to promulgate air quality designations after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS and does not contain any information collection activities.
This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. This rule is not subject to the APA but is subject to CAA section 107(d)(2)(B), which does not require notice and comment rulemaking to take this action.
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 implements mandates specifically and explicitly set forth in the CAA for the 2012 PM
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have a 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. Areas of Indian country are not being designated as part of this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying 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 establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
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 any population, including any minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The results of this evaluation of environmental justice considerations is contained in section III of this preamble titled, “Environmental Justice Considerations.”
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the U.S. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Section 307 (b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: (i) When the agency action consists of “nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken by the Administrator,” or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally applicable, if “such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.”
This final action designating areas across the U.S. for the 2012 annual PM
Thus, any petitions for review of final designations must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date final action is published in the
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 81 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for commercial blueline tilefish in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. Commercial landings for blueline tilefish, as estimated by the Science and Research Director, have reached the commercial annual catch limit (ACL). Therefore, NMFS is closing the commercial sector for blueline tilefish in the South Atlantic EEZ at 12:01 a.m., local time, April 7, 2015, and it will remain closed until the start of the next fishing season, January 1, 2016. This closure is necessary to protect the blueline tilefish resource.
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, April 7, 2015, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2016.
Britni LaVine, NMFS Southeast Region, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes blueline tilefish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and NMFS prepared the FMP, and the FMP is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
NMFS implemented management measures in Amendment 32 to the FMP for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (Amendment 32). The final rule published in the
NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for blueline tilefish when the commercial ACL is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register, as specified in 50 CFR 622.193(z)(1)(i). The commercial ACL for blueline tilefish is 17,841 lb (8,093 kg), round weight. NMFS has determined that the commercial ACL for South Atlantic blueline tilefish has been reached. Accordingly, the commercial sector for South Atlantic blueline tilefish is closed effective April 7, 2015, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2016.
The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper having blueline tilefish onboard must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such blueline tilefish prior to April 7, 2015. During the closure, all sale or purchase of blueline tilefish is prohibited and harvest or possession of blueline tilefish in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is limited to the bag and possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.187(b)(2)(iv) and 622.187(c)(1), respectively. These bag and possession limits apply in the South Atlantic on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested,
Note that the recreational sector for blueline tilefish opened on January 1 and closed March 30, 2015, when the final rule for Amendment 32 became effective, because Amendment 32 implemented a seasonal closure for the recreational sector for blueline tilefish that extends from September 1 through April 30. Currently, the recreational sector for blueline tilefish is scheduled to reopen on May 1, 2015, and stay open through August 31, 2015, if the recreational ACL has not been met.
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of blueline tilefish and the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(z)(1)(i) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues this final rule to implement management measures described in a framework action to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). This final rule revises the daily bag limit for red grouper in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) and removes the recreational post-season bag limit reduction accountability measure (AM) for Gulf red grouper. Additionally, this rule corrects an error in the Gulf individual fishing quota (IFQ) multi-use provisions for the Grouper/Tilefish IFQ program. The purpose of this final rule is to modify the Gulf red grouper recreational management measures to improve recreational fishing opportunities by achieving optimal yield for the red grouper resource.
This rule is effective May 7, 2015.
Electronic copies of the framework action, which includes an environmental assessment, a regulatory impact review, and a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
Richard Malinowski, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The Gulf reef fish fishery is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
On January 27, 2015, NMFS published a proposed rule for the framework action and requested public comment (80 FR 4240). The proposed rule and framework action outline the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A summary of the actions implemented by this final rule is provided below.
This final rule reduces the Gulf red grouper recreational bag limit from four fish to two fish within the four-fish aggregate grouper bag limit, and removes the post-season AM that reduces the daily bag limit the next fishing season when the previous fishing year's annual catch limit (ACL) is exceeded. The other post-season AMs currently codified in the regulations remain in effect without change.
In addition, this final rule corrects a mistake in the regulations that was implemented in the final rule for Amendment 32 to the FMP. NMFS changes “red grouper multi-use allocation” to “gag multi-use allocation” in § 622.22(a)(5)(ii)(B), where it erroneously stated that if red grouper is under a rebuilding plan, then “red grouper multi-use allocation” should be set to zero. This change is not related to the framework action.
NMFS received 28 comment submissions on the framework action and the proposed rule; 1 from a sport fishing club, 1 from a state agency, and 26 from individuals. All comments received were in regard to the bag limit reduction; no comments were received directly addressing the removal of the accountability measure. Fourteen submissions supported the bag limit reduction, which is expected to alleviate the need for in-season closures. Eight individuals specifically opposed the bag limit reduction. Other submissions were outside the scope of the rule, offering suggestions for alternative management options, such as different size and bag limits, regionalized regulations, or a tag system. These are options the Council has considered in the past, and could consider again. A summary of the comments addressing the actions being implemented by this rulemaking and NMFS' responses to those comments appears below.
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined that this final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf red grouper and is consistent with the framework action, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding the certification to the Small Business Administration. Comments regarding the general net economic effects of the action are addressed in the comments and responses section of this final rule. No changes to the final rule were made in response to these comments. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.
Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf, Recreational, Red grouper.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) * * * However, if red grouper is under a rebuilding plan, the percentage of gag multi-use allocation is equal to zero.
(b) * * *
(2)
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * * In addition, the notification will reduce the length of the recreational red grouper fishing season the following fishing year by the amount necessary to ensure red grouper recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACT in the following fishing year.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; modification of closure.
NMFS is opening directed fishing for northern rockfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI). This action is necessary to fully use the 2015 total allowable catch (TAC) of northern rockfish in the BSAI.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), April 2, 2015, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2015. Comments must be received at the following address no later than 4:30 p.m., A.l.t., April 17, 2015.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2014-0134” by any of the following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
• Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
Pursuant to the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (80 FR 11919, March 5, 2015), NMFS closed the directed fishery for northern rockfish under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii).
As of April 1, 2015, NMFS has determined that approximately 2,300 metric tons of northern rockfish initial TAC remains unharvested in the BSAI. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully utilize the 2015 TAC of northern rockfish in the BSAI, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is opening directed fishing for northern rockfish in the BSAI. This will enhance the socioeconomic well-being of harvesters in this area. The Administrator, Alaska Region (Regional Administrator) considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) The current catch of northern rockfish in the BSAI and, (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of vessels in participating in this fishery.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and § 679.25(c)(1)(ii) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the opening of northern rockfish in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of April 1, 2015.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow the fishery for northern rockfish in the BSAI to be harvested in an expedient manner and in accordance with the regulatory schedule. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until April 17, 2015.
This action is required by § 679.20 and § 679.25 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher/processors using hook-and-line gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the A season allowance of the 2015 Pacific cod total allowable catch apportioned to catcher/processors using hook-and-line gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), April 2, 2015, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., June 10, 2015.
Obren Davis, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. Regulations governing sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR part 680.
The A season allowance of the 2015 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) apportioned to catcher/processors using hook-and-line gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 2,850 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (80 FR 10250, February 25, 2015).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the A season allowance of the 2015 Pacific cod TAC
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the directed fishing closure of Pacific cod by catcher/processors using hook-and-line gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of April 1, 2015.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is extending the comment period for the proposed rule published in the
The comment period for the proposed rule published on February 5, 2015 is extended to May 6, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN: 3245-AG24, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• For mail, paper, disk, or CD/ROM submissions: Brenda Fernandez, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Policy, Planning and Liaison, 409 Third Street SW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20416.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Brenda Fernandez, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Policy, Planning and Liaison, 409 Third Street SW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20416.
SBA will post all comments on
Brenda Fernandez, Office of Policy, Planning and Liaison, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416; (202) 207-7337;
In the rule published on February 5, 2015 at 80 FR 6618, SBA proposed to implement provisions of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, which pertain to the establishment of a Government-wide mentor protégé program for all small business concerns. The rule would also make minor changes to the mentor-protégé provisions for the 8(a) Business Development program in order to make the mentor-protégé rules for each of the programs as consistent as possible. The rule would amend the current joint venture provisions to clarify the conditions for creating and operating joint venture partnerships, including the effect of such partnerships on any mentor-protégé relationships. Finally, the rule would make several additional changes to current size, 8(a) Office of Hearings and Appeals or HUBZone regulations, concerning among other things, ownership and control, changes in primary industry, standards of review and interested party status for some appeals.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Extension of comment period.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) in the
Submit comments by June 19, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2009-0087, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Mail/Hand delivery/Courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.
On November 19, 2014, the Commission published an NPR in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA proposes a Clean Water Act (CWA) regulation that would better protect human health and the environment and protect the operational integrity of publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) by establishing pretreatment standards that would prevent the discharge of pollutants in wastewater from onshore unconventional oil and gas extraction facilities to POTWs. Unconventional oil and gas (UOG) extraction wastewater can be generated in large quantities and contains constituents that are potentially harmful to human health and the environment. Because they are not typical of POTW influent wastewater, some UOG extraction wastewater constituents can be discharged, untreated, from the POTW to the receiving stream; can disrupt the operation of the POTW (
Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before June 8, 2015. EPA will conduct a public hearing on the proposed pretreatment standards on May 29, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. in the EPA East Building, Room 1153, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
Submit your comments on the proposed rule, identified by Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0598 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For technical information, contact Lisa Biddle, Engineering and Analysis Division, Telephone: 202-566-0350; email:
Entities potentially regulated by this proposed action include:
This section is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this proposed action. Other types of entities that do not meet the above criteria could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this proposed action, you should carefully examine
The public can submit comments in written or electronic form. (See the
The proposed rule is supported by a number of documents including the Technical Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Oil and Gas Extraction (TDD), Document No. EPA-821-R-15-003 (DCN SGE00704). This and other supporting documents are available in the public record for this proposed rule and on EPA's Web site at
This preamble describes the reasons for the proposed rule; the legal authority for the proposed rule; a summary of the options considered for the proposal; background information, including terms, acronyms, and abbreviations used in this document; and the technical and economic methodologies used by the Agency to develop the proposed rule. In addition, this preamble also solicits comment and data from the public.
EPA proposes this regulation under the authorities of sections 101, 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1324, and 1361.
Responsible development of America's oil and gas resources offers important economic, energy security, and environmental benefits. EPA is working with states and other stakeholders to understand and address potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing, an important process involved in producing unconventional oil and natural gas, so the public has confidence that oil and natural gas production will proceed in a safe and responsible manner.
Recent advances in the well completion process, combining hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, have made extraction of oil and natural gas from
Hydraulic fracturing is used to extract oil and natural gas from highly impermeable rock formations, such as shale rock, by injecting fracturing fluids at high pressures to create a network of fissures in the rock formations and give the oil and/or natural gas a pathway to travel to the well for extraction. Pressure within the low permeability, low porosity geologic formations forces wastewaters, as well as oil and/or gas, to the surface. In this proposed rulemaking, oil and gas extraction includes production, field exploration, drilling, well completion, and/or well treatment; wastewater sources associated with these activities in low permeability, low porosity formations are collectively referred to as UOG extraction wastewater.
Direct discharges of oil and gas extraction wastewater pollutants from onshore oil and gas resources, including UOG resources, to waters of the U.S. have been regulated since 1979 under the existing Oil and Gas Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (ELGs) (40 CFR part 435), the majority of which fall under subpart C, the Onshore Subcategory. The limitations for direct dischargers in the Onshore Subcategory represent Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT). Based on the availability and economic practicability of underground injection technologies, the BPT-based limitations for direct dischargers require zero discharge of pollutants to waters of the U.S. However, there are currently no requirements in subpart C that apply to onshore oil and gas extraction facilities that are “indirect dischargers,”
UOG extraction wastewater can be generated in large quantities and contains constituents that are potentially harmful to human health and the environment. Wastewater from UOG wells often contains high concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS) (salt content). The wastewater can also contain various organic chemicals, inorganic chemicals, metals, and naturally-occurring radioactive materials (referred to as technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material or TENORM).
POTWs collect wastewater from homes, commercial buildings, and industrial facilities and pipe it to their sewage treatment plant. In some cases, industrial dischargers can haul wastewater to the treatment plant by tanker truck. The industrial wastewater, commingled with domestic wastewater, is treated by the POTW and discharged to a receiving waterbody. However, most POTWs are designed primarily to treat municipally generated, not industrial, wastewater. They typically provide at least secondary level treatment and, thus, are designed to remove suspended solids and organic material using biological treatment. As mentioned previously, wastewater from UOG extraction can contain high concentrations of TDS, radioactive elements, metals, chlorides, sulfates, and other dissolved inorganic constituents that POTWs are not designed to remove. Because they are not typical of POTW influent wastewater, some UOG extraction wastewater constituents can be discharged, untreated, from the POTW to the receiving stream; can disrupt the operation of the POTW (
Under section 307(b) of the CWA, there are general and specific prohibitions on the discharge to POTWs of pollutants in specified circumstances in order to prevent “pass through” or “interference.” Pass through is defined as whenever the introduction of pollutants from a user will result in a discharge that causes or contributes to a violation of any requirement of the POTW permit. See 40 CFR 403.3(p). Interference means a discharge that, among other things, inhibits or disrupts the POTW or prevents biosolids use consistent with the POTW's chosen method of disposal. See 40 CFR 403.3(k). These general and specific prohibitions must be implemented through local limits established by POTWs in certain cases. See 40 CFR 403.5(c). POTWs with approved pretreatment programs must develop and enforce local limits to implement the general prohibitions on user discharges that pass through or interfere with the POTW or discharges to the POTW prohibited under the specific prohibitions in 40 CFR 403.5(b). In the case of POTWs not required to develop a pretreatment program, the POTWs must develop local limits where there is interference or pass through and the limits are necessary to ensure compliance with the POTW's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit or biosolids use.
Under section 307(b) of the CWA, EPA is authorized to establish nationally applicable pretreatment standards for industrial categories that discharge indirectly (
To legally discharge wastewater, the POTW must have an NPDES permit that limits the type and quantity of pollutants that it can discharge. Discharges from POTWs are subject to the secondary treatment effluent limitations at 40 CFR part 133, which address certain conventional pollutants but do not address the main parameters of concern in UOG extraction wastewater (
It is currently uncommon for POTWs to establish local limits for some of the parameters of concern identified for this proposed rulemaking. This is due to a number of factors, including lack of sufficient information regarding pollutants in the wastewater being sent to POTWs; lack of national water quality recommendations for key pollutants, such as TDS; and lack of state water quality criteria for such key pollutants in some states, all of which can create significant informational hurdles to including appropriate WQBELs in POTW permits. Where a POTW's permit does not contain a WQBEL for all of the constituents of concern in the wastewater being sent to POTWs, it is difficult to demonstrate pass through of industrial pollutants (because “pass through” here means making the POTW exceed its permit limits), and thus difficult for POTWs to establish local limits to implement the general prohibition in the pretreatment regulations. See Section XV. for additional information.
As a result of the gap in federal CWA regulations, increases in onshore oil and gas extraction from UOG resources and the related generation of wastewater requiring management, concerns over the level of treatment provided by public wastewater treatment facilities, as well as potential interference with treatment processes, and concerns over water quality and aquatic life impacts that can result from inadequate treatment, EPA proposes technology-based categorical pretreatment standards under the CWA for discharges of pollutants into POTWs from existing and new onshore UOG extraction facilities in subpart C of 40 CFR part 435. Consistent with existing BPT-based requirements for direct dischargers in this subcategory, EPA proposes pretreatment standards for existing and new sources (PSES and PSNS, respectively) that would prohibit the indirect discharge of wastewater pollutants associated with onshore UOG extraction facilities.
Based on the information reviewed as part of this proposed rulemaking, this proposed prohibition reflects current industry practice. EPA has not identified any existing onshore UOG extraction facilities that currently discharge UOG extraction wastewater to POTWs. However, because onshore unconventional oil and gas extraction facilities have discharged to POTWs in the past, and because the potential remains that some facilities can consider discharging to POTWs in the future, EPA proposes this rule.
EPA proposes pretreatment standards for existing and new sources (PSES and PSNS, respectively) that would prohibit the indirect discharge of wastewater pollutants associated with onshore UOG extraction facilities. EPA is defining UOG extraction wastewater as sources of wastewater pollutants associated with production, field exploration, drilling, well completion, or well treatment for
EPA does not propose pretreatment standards for wastewater pollutants associated with conventional oil and gas extraction facilities at this time (see Section XIV). EPA proposes to reserve such standards to a future rulemaking, if appropriate.
Because the data reviewed by EPA show that the UOG extraction industry is not currently managing wastewaters by sending them to POTWs, the proposed rule causes no incremental change to current industry practice that EPA measured as compliance costs or monetized benefits.
Still, EPA has considered that while states, localities, and POTWs are not currently approving these wastewaters for acceptance at POTWs, some POTWs continue to receive requests to accept UOG extraction wastewater (DCN SGE00742; DCN SGE00743; DCN SGE00762). This proposed rule would provide regulatory certainty and would eliminate the burden on POTWs to analyze such requests.
The proposed rule would also eliminate the need to develop requirements in states where UOG extraction is not currently occurring, but is likely to occur in the future. There are few states where existing regulations address UOG extraction wastewater discharges to POTWs (see Section VIII.D. and TDD Chapter A.2.). While EPA knows there will likely be some reduction in state and POTW staff time and resources, EPA did not attempt to estimate, quantitatively, monetary savings associated with the reduced burden to states and localities that would result from this proposed rule.
Most POTWs are not able to sufficiently treat TDS and many other pollutants in UOG extraction wastewater, and thus this proposed rule would potentially prevent elevated TDS and the presence of other pollutants in POTW effluent. Prevention of the discharge of TDS accomplished by the proposed rule would further protect water quality because national water quality criteria recommendations have not yet been established for many constituents of TDS.
The proposed rule could impose some costs on industry if discharging wastewaters to POTWs becomes economically attractive to UOG operations relative to other management options such as reuse or disposal via underground injection wells in the future. EPA did not estimate these potential compliance costs or environmental benefits because of the uncertainty about future demand for POTWs to accept UOG extraction wastewaters and the associated incremental costs or benefits.
EPA solicits comments on the proposed rule, including EPA's rationale as described in this preamble. EPA seeks comments on issues specifically identified in this document as well as any other issues that are not specifically addressed in this document. Comments are most helpful when accompanied by specific examples and supporting data. Specifically, EPA solicits information and data on the following topics.
1. EPA's proposed definitions of UOG and UOG extraction wastewater and specifically whether the proposed definition of unconventional oil and gas is sufficiently clear to enable oil and gas extraction operators and/or pretreatment authorities to determine whether specific wastewaters are from conventional or unconventional sources. See Section XII.
2. Whether or not there are any existing onshore UOG extraction facilities that currently discharge UOG extraction wastewater to POTWs in the U.S. See Section XII.E.4. If existing discharges to POTWs are identified, EPA requests comment on whether or not the proposed effective date remains appropriate. See Section XVII.
3. Costs and benefits to POTWs, states, and localities associated with the proposed rule. See Section VI.C.
4. Volumes of, and pollutants and concentrations in, wastewater generated from UOG extraction. See Section XII.
5. The nature and frequency of requests received by POTWs to accept UOG extraction wastewater, and the likelihood that such requests will continue to be submitted in the future. EPA is particularly interested in hearing from POTWs and states on this matter. See Section VI.C. and Section XIV.A.2.
6. Volumes of, and pollutants and concentrations in, wastewater generated from conventional oil and gas extraction. See Section XIV.A.2.c.
7. The prevalence of conventional oil and gas wastewater discharges to POTWs, including information on any pretreatment that could be applied, geologic formations the gas or oil is extracted from, and locations within the U.S. See Section XII. and Section XIV.A.2.
8. Removal and “pass through” of UOG extraction wastewater pollutants at POTWs. See Section XIV. and Section XII.E.4.
9. The environmental impacts of UOG extraction wastewater discharges to POTWs. See Section XV.
Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, also known as the CWA, to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.” 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). The CWA establishes a comprehensive program for protecting our nation's waters. Among its core provisions, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants from a point source to waters of the U.S., except as authorized under the CWA. Under section 402 of the CWA, discharges can be authorized through a NPDES permit. The CWA establishes a two-pronged approach for these permits, technology-based controls that establish the floor of performance for all dischargers, and water quality-based limits where the technology-based limits are insufficient for the discharge to meet applicable water quality standards. To serve as the basis for the technology-based controls, the CWA authorizes EPA to establish national technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards for discharges from different categories of point sources, such as industrial, commercial, and public sources, that discharge directly into waters of the U.S.
The CWA also authorizes EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards that restrict pollutant discharges from facilities that discharge pollutants indirectly, by sending wastewater to POTWs, as outlined in sections 307(b) and (c) and 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c). Specifically, the CWA authorizes that EPA establish pretreatment standards for those pollutants in wastewater from indirect dischargers that EPA determines are not susceptible to treatment by a POTW or which would interfere with POTW
Direct dischargers (those discharging directly to surface waters) must comply with effluent limitations in NPDES permits. Technology-based effluent limitations in NPDES permits for direct dischargers are derived from effluent limitations guidelines (CWA sections 301 and 304) and new source performance standards (CWA section 306) promulgated by EPA, or based on best professional judgment (BPJ) where EPA has not promulgated an applicable effluent guideline or new source performance standard (CWA section 402(a)(1)(B) and 40 CFR 125.3). Additional limitations based on water quality standards are also required to be included in the permit where necessary to meet water quality standards. CWA section 301(b)(1)(C). The effluent guidelines and new source performance standards are established by regulation for categories of industrial dischargers and are based on the degree of control that can be achieved using various levels of pollution control technology, as specified in the Act.
EPA promulgates national effluent guidelines and new source performance standards for major industrial categories for three classes of pollutants: (1) Conventional pollutants (total suspended solids, oil and grease, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD
EPA develops ELGs that are technology-based regulations for specific categories of dischargers. EPA bases these regulations on the performance of control and treatment technologies. The legislative history of CWA section 304(b), which is the heart of the effluent guidelines program, describes the need to press toward higher levels of control through research and development of new processes, modifications, replacement of obsolete plants and processes, and other improvements in technology, taking into account the cost of controls. Congress has also stated that EPA need not consider water quality impacts on individual water bodies as the guidelines are developed; see Statement of Senator Muskie (October 4, 1972),
There are four types of standards applicable to direct dischargers (facilities that discharge directly to surface waters), and two types of standards applicable to indirect dischargers (facilities that discharge to POTWs), described in detail below. Subsections 1 through 4 describe standards for direct discharges and subsection 5 describes standards for indirect discharges.
Traditionally, EPA defines BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the best performances of facilities within the industry, grouped to reflect various ages, sizes, processes, or other common characteristics. BPT effluent limitations control conventional, toxic, and nonconventional pollutants. In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first considers the cost of achieving effluent reductions in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also considers the age of equipment and facilities, the processes employed, engineering aspects of the control technologies, any required process changes, non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate. See CWA section 304(b)(1)(B). If, however, existing performance is uniformly inadequate, EPA can establish limitations based on higher levels of control than what is currently in place in an industrial category, when based on an Agency determination that the technology is available in another category or subcategory, and can be practically applied.
The 1977 amendments to the CWA require EPA to identify additional levels of effluent reduction for conventional pollutants associated with BCT technology for discharges from existing industrial point sources. In addition to other factors specified in section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA establish BCT limitations after consideration of a two-part “cost reasonableness” test. EPA explained its methodology for the development of BCT limitations in July 9, 1986 (51 FR 24974). Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional pollutants: BOD
BAT represents the second level of stringency for controlling direct discharge of toxic and nonconventional pollutants. In general, BAT-based effluent guidelines and new source performance standards represent the best available economically achievable performance of facilities in the industrial subcategory or category. Following the statutory language, EPA considers the technological availability and the economic achievability in determining what level of control represents BAT. CWA section 301(b)(2)(A). Other statutory factors that EPA considers in assessing BAT are the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, potential process changes, and non-water quality environmental impacts, including energy requirements and such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate. CWA section 304(b)(2)(B). The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning the weight to be accorded these factors.
NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the best available demonstrated control
As discussed above, section 307(b) of the Act calls for EPA to issue pretreatment standards for discharges of pollutants from existing sources to POTWs. Section 307(c) of the Act calls for EPA to promulgate pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). Both standards are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTWs. Categorical pretreatment standards for existing sources are technology-based and are analogous to BPT and BAT effluent limitations guidelines, and thus the Agency typically considers the same factors in promulgating PSES as it considers in promulgating BAT. See
EPA promulgated the first Oil and Gas Extraction ELGs (40 CFR part 435) in 1979, and substantially amended the regulation in 1993 (Offshore), 1996 (Coastal), and 2001 (Synthetic-based drilling fluids). The Oil and Gas Extraction industry is subcategorized in 40 CFR part 435 as follows: (1) Subpart A: Offshore; (2) subpart C: Onshore; (3) subpart D: Coastal; (4) subpart E: Agricultural and Wildlife Water Use; and (5) subpart F: Stripper.
The existing subpart C regulation covers wastewater discharges from field exploration, drilling, production, well treatment, and well completion activities in the oil and gas industry. Although unconventional oil and gas resources occur in offshore and coastal regions, recent development of UOG resources in the U.S. has occurred primarily onshore in regions to which the regulations in subpart C (Onshore) and subpart E (Agricultural and Wildlife Water Use) apply and thus, the gap in onshore regulations is the focus of this proposed rulemaking effort. For this reason, only the regulations that apply to onshore oil and gas extraction are described in more detail here.
Subpart C applies to facilities engaged in the production, field exploration, drilling, well completion, and well treatment in the oil and gas extraction industry which are located landward of the inner boundary of the territorial seas—and which are not included in the definition of other subparts—including subpart D (Coastal). The regulations at 40 CFR 435.32 specify the following for BPT: There shall be no discharge of waste water pollutants into navigable waters from any source associated with production, field exploration, drilling, well completion, or well treatment (
Subpart E applies to onshore facilities located in the continental U.S. and west of the 98th meridian for which the produced water has a use in agriculture or wildlife propagation when discharged into navigable waters. Definitions in 40 CFR 435.51(c) explain that the term “use in agricultural or wildlife propagation” means that (1) the produced water is of good enough quality to be used for wildlife or livestock watering or other agricultural uses; and (2) the produced water is actually put to such use during periods of discharge. The regulations at 40 CFR 435.52 specify that the only allowable discharge is produced water, with an oil and grease concentration not exceeding 35 milligrams per liter (mg/L). The BPT regulations prohibit the discharge of waste pollutants into navigable waters from any source (other than produced water) associated with production, field exploration, drilling, well completion, or well treatment (
In addition to applicable federal requirements, some states regulate the management, storage, and disposal of UOG extraction wastewater, including regulations concerning pollutant discharges to POTWs from oil and gas extraction facilities. In addition to pretreatment requirements, some states have indirectly addressed the issue of pollutant discharges to POTWs by limiting the management and disposal options available for operators to use.
During initial development of Marcellus shale gas resources, some operators managed UOG wastewater by transfer to POTWs. EPA did not identify other areas in the U.S. where POTWs routinely accepted UOG extraction wastewaters. Refer to TDD Chapter A.2 which summarizes how Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia responded to UOG extraction wastewater discharges into their POTWs. EPA did not identify any state level requirements that require zero discharges of pollutants from UOG operations to POTWs in the same manner as the proposed rule.
As required by the SDWA section 1421, EPA has promulgated regulations to protect underground sources of drinking water through Underground Injection Control (UIC) programs that regulate the injection of fluids underground. These regulations are found at 40 CFR parts 144-148, and specifically prohibit any underground injection not authorized by UIC permit. 40 CFR 144.11. The regulations classify underground injection into six classes; wells that inject fluids brought to the surface in connection with oil and gas production are classified as Class II UIC wells. Thus, onshore oil and gas extraction facilities that seek to meet the zero discharge requirements of the existing ELGs or proposed pretreatment standard through underground injection of wastewater must obtain a Class II UIC permit for such disposal.
In developing the proposed rule, EPA considered information collected through site visits and telephone contacts with UOG facility operators, facilities that treat and/or dispose of UOG extraction wastewater, and wastewater management equipment
EPA conducted seven site visits between May, 2012 and September, 2013 to UOG extraction companies and UOG extraction wastewater treatment facilities. The purpose of these visits was to collect information about facility operations, wastewater generation and management practices, and wastewater treatment and reuse. Six of the seven visits were to facilities in Pennsylvania, and one was in Arkansas, however, information collected often covered operations beyond just those visited during the site visits, at times including company operations in many UOG formations across the U.S. In addition to site visits, EPA conducted 11 telephone conferences or meetings with UOG operators and facilities that treat and/or dispose of UOG extraction wastewater. EPA collected detailed information from the facilities visited and contacted, such as information about the operations associated with wastewater generation, wastewater treatment, and reuse. EPA also contacted 11 vendors of equipment and processes used to manage and treat UOG extraction wastewater. EPA prepared site visit and telephone meeting reports, and telephone call reports summarizing the collected information. EPA has included in the public record site visit reports, meeting reports, and telephone contact reports that contain all information collected for which facilities have not asserted a claim of CBI.
Since announcing initiation of this proposed rulemaking activity, EPA has actively reached out to interested stakeholders to solicit input from well operators, industry trade associations, interested regulatory authorities, technology vendors, and environmental organizations. Stakeholder involvement in the regulatory development process is essential to the success of this effort. EPA will continue to engage with the affected regulated sector and concerned stakeholders throughout the rulemaking process.
In addition to the site visit related activities described above, EPA participated in multiple meetings with industry stakeholders, their representatives, and/or their members, including America's Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA), American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA). The purpose of the meetings was to discuss EPA's thinking concerning a pretreatment standard for the UOG extraction industry, to better understand industry wastewater management practices, and to gather information to inform its proposed rulemaking (see DCN SGE00967).
EPA participated in conference calls with the environmental stakeholders, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and Clean Water Action. The purpose of these meetings was to explain EPA's thinking about the standard under development and learn about the perspectives of these stakeholders regarding wastewater management in the UOG extraction industry.
EPA participated in a two conference calls with the Center for Sustainable Shale Development (CSSD), a collaborative group made up of environmental organizations, philanthropic foundations, and energy companies from the Appalachian Basin. The purpose of these calls was to learn about the performance standards under development by the CSSD for sustainable shale gas development, based on an “independent, third-party evaluation process.”
In an effort to improve future implementation of any UOG regulation, EPA initiated an EPA-State implementation pilot project coordinated by the Environmental Council of States (ECOS) and the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) to draw on experience of state agency experts. Through this pilot project, EPA has been able to more thoroughly consider the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches in order to select one that produces environmental results while more fully considering implementation burden. This pilot effort with the states has also been an opportunity to hear ideas on how technology innovation can be fostered during both development and implementation of the regulation.
In addition to the state implementation pilot, EPA also reached out to EPA regional, as well as state, pretreatment coordinators. One way EPA did this was by participating in calls, where EPA staff learned about past or present discharges to POTWs from UOG operations. See DCN SGE00742; DCN SGE00743.
EPA conducted an extensive search and review of published information about UOG development, wastewater generation and management practices, and wastewater treatment, disposal, and reuse. Because of the rapid developments in the UOG industry, in addition to reviewing published information, EPA participated in more than 10 industry conferences and webinars between March 2012 and June 2014. Presenters at these conferences provided information about current industry wastewater management practices. EPA also obtained information from EPA Regions and states. EPA Region 3 provided information about the development of the Marcellus shale gas industry and disposal of shale gas wastewater, including discharges to POTWs.
EPA used a propriety database of all oil and gas wells in the U.S., called DI Desktop®, obtained from DrillingInfo. This comprehensive database includes information such as well API number, operator name, basin (
At the request of Congress, EPA's Office of Research and Development is conducting a study to better understand any potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. The scope of the research includes the full lifecycle of water in hydraulic fracturing, including wastewater management and disposal. In support of its study, EPA conducted a series of technical workshops, including, among others, a workshop on Wastewater Treatment and Related Modeling. In support of the proposed rule, EPA reviewed information collected in support of the Congressionally-mandated study and attended meetings, workshops, and roundtable discussions pertaining to water and wastewater management and treatment in the UOG extraction industry. See DCN SGE00063,
Oil and Gas Extraction is the exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas from wells. Refer to Section XII for additional background on unconventional gas resources, extraction processes, and wastewater generation. As explained previously, the scope of this proposed rulemaking is limited to pretreatment standards for wastewater generated from unconventional, rather than conventional, oil and gas extraction facilities. The description here provides a broader description of the oil and gas industry in order to provide the context in which the UOG industry lies.
The major products of the Oil and Gas Extraction Industry are petroleum, natural gas, and natural gas liquids.
Natural gas can be produced both from conventional natural gas deposits and unconventional deposits. Natural gas, and especially unconventional natural gas, has become increasingly significant to the U.S. energy economy. The rising importance of natural gas results, in part, from its lower air pollution characteristics compared to other fossil fuels; its substantial, and increasing, domestic supply; and the presence of a well-developed processing and transmission/distribution infrastructure in the U.S. (DCN SGE00010). Increased natural gas production from shale formations also has the potential to reduce U.S. dependence on energy-related imports.
Between 2000 and 2012, total marketed production of natural gas in the U.S. as a whole grew by another 25 percent, with an average annual growth rate of 0.8 percent (DCN SGE00908). The sharp rise in production of shale gas contributed to a lower price of natural gas, thereby increasing the gap between prices of gas and oil, which made oil a relatively more attractive option for producers. Beginning in 2005, the disparity between oil and natural gas prices started to grow as oil prices continued to rise while natural gas prices declined. Many firms that produce both gas and oil began to focus on acquisition of, and production from, liquids-rich formations over natural gas production (DCN SGE00817, DCN SGE00832).
Overall, domestic crude oil production steadily declined between 2000 and 2008, while steadily increasing after that. This shift towards liquids production is evident in the sharp rise in production from tight oil resources, including shale, beginning in 2008. From 2007 to 2013, the EIA estimated that tight oil production increased 10-fold, from 0.34 to 3.48 million barrels per day (DCN SGE00902). Future domestic demand for liquid fuels will depend on the future level of activities dependent on liquid fuels, such as transportation. Demand will also be affected by the fuel efficiency of the consumption technology. The transportation sector will continue to account for the largest share of total consumption despite its share of total consumption falling due to improvements in vehicle efficiency. The industrial sector is the only end-use sector likely to see an increase in consumption of petroleum and liquids (DCN SGE00913).
While oil and natural gas are often considered together, the way in which prices are set for each greatly differs. While the price of oil is set at the global level, natural gas prices for the U.S. tend to be set regionally. In recent years, the ratio of oil prices to natural gas prices has reached historically high levels (DCN SGE00547). While these two products have some commonalities in their uses, oil and gas are not perfect substitutes as they require different transportation and processing infrastructure, and have a number of differentiated uses.
EPA gathered information on the industry via the NAICS, which is a standard created by the U.S. Census for use in classifying business establishments within the U.S. economy. The industry category that would be affected by this proposed rule is Oil and Gas Extraction Industry (NAICS 21111). This industry has two subcategories: (1) Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction (NAICS 211111), which is made up of facilities that have wells with petroleum or natural gas or produce crude petroleum from surface shale or tar sands, and Natural Gas Liquid Extraction (NAICS 211112), which recover liquid hydrocarbons from oil and gas field gases and sulfur from natural gas.
According to data from the Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB), in 2011 there were 6,528 firms under the overall oil and gas extraction sector. This reflects a total 2 percent growth from 2000 to 2011 and an average annual growth rate of 0.2 percent. The Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction segment contributed 6,523 (or 99%) firms to the total Oil and Gas Extraction sector, and the Natural Gas Liquid Extraction segment contributed 136 (less than 1%) firms to the overall sector. Although the Natural Gas Liquid Extraction segment is much smaller in numbers compared to the Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction segment, the total percent change in number of firms from 2000 to 2011 is much higher for natural gas liquids extraction at 62% as compared to 2% for crude petroleum and natural gas extraction. If the ratio of oil-to-natural gas prices remains high, there could be a shift towards drilling in liquids-rich shale formations, making this sector increasingly important to oil and gas extraction firms (DCN SGE00832; DCN SGE00807; DCN SGE00817; DCN SGE00921).
In 2011, 99% of the Oil and Gas Extraction Industry was estimated to be small businesses when using the Small Business Administration definition of a small business as having 500 or fewer employees. Average revenues for firms for the overall oil and gas extraction sector in 2007 were estimated at $54
The oil market is a globally integrated market with multiple supply sources that are connected to multiple markets. Because of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries' (OPEC's) high accounting of global oil reserves, OPEC is able to place producer quotas on members in an effort to manage world oil prices. Other oil producers have relatively smaller reserves and have no influence, individually, on price (DCN SGE00854). On the other hand, global oil prices are also greatly influenced by global demand for oil, with the largest sources of demand being the U.S. and China (DCN SGE00854). While the U.S. is also one of the largest crude oil producers, it remains a major importer (demander) of oil; as a result the level of U.S. imports can significantly influence oil prices. The recent upsurge in U.S. oil production, largely from tight and shale oil resources, with a consequent decline in U.S. imports, has exerted downward pressure on international oil prices.
In North America, specifically within the U.S., there is a relatively mature, integrated natural gas market with a robust spot market for the natural gas commodity. Essentially, the spot market is the daily market, where natural gas is bought and sold for immediate delivery. For understanding the price of natural gas on a specific day, the spot market price is most informative. In U.S. natural gas markets, natural gas spot prices are determined by overall supply and demand (DCN SGE00547).
Large volume consumers of natural gas, mainly industrial consumers and electricity generators, generally have the ability to switch between oil and natural gas. When the price of gas is low relative to oil, these consumers could switch to gas, increasing demand for natural gas and increasing gas prices. Alternatively, when gas prices are high, demand could shift in the opposite direction causing a relative decrease in natural gas prices (DCN SGE00921).
EPA reviewed financial performance of UOG extraction firms and other oil and gas firms. EPA found no deterioration in financial performance and conditions for UOG firms over the previous decade, and this suggests that UOG firms are well-positioned for continued investment in UOG exploration and development. The strong growth in revenue and total capital outlays by the UOG firms during the latter part of the last decade—which coincides with the growth in UOG exploration and production activity—underscores the economic opportunity provided by the emerging UOG resource and the industry's commitment to investing and producing UOG for the foreseeable future. See the Industry Profile (DCN SGE00932) for more information.
Through the proposed rule, EPA is not reopening the regulatory requirements applicable to direct dischargers. Rather, EPA would amend subpart C only to add requirements for indirect dischargers where there currently are none: Specifically, pretreatment standards for facilities engaged in oil and gas extraction from UOG sources that send their discharges directly to POTWs. For purposes of this proposed rulemaking, EPA proposes to define “unconventional oil and gas (UOG)” as “crude oil and natural gas
For purposes of the proposed rule, UOG consists of crude oil and natural gas
Prior to the well development processes described in the following subsections, operators conduct exploration and obtain surface use agreements, mineral leases, and permits. These steps can take a few months to several years to complete. When completed, operators construct the well pad and begin the well development process, as described in the following subsections.
Drilling occurs in two phases: exploration and development. Exploration activities are those operations involving the drilling of wells to locate hydrocarbon bearing formations and to determine the size and production potential of hydrocarbon reserves. Development activities involve the drilling of production wells once a hydrocarbon reserve has been discovered and delineated.
Drilling for oil and gas is generally performed by rotary drilling methods, which involve the use of a circularly rotating drill bit that grinds through the earth's crust as it descends. Drilling fluids (muds) are injected down through
In UOG resources, the crude oil and natural gas often occur continuously within a formation. As a result, UOG drilling often employs “horizontal drilling.” Horizontal drilling involves a sequence of drilling steps: (1) Vertical (described above) and (2) horizontal. In horizontal drilling, operators drill vertically down to a desired depth, about 500 feet above the target formation (called the “kickoff point”), and then gradually turn the drill approximately 90 degrees to continue drilling laterally continuously through the target formation. UOG wells are also drilled vertically or directionally,
Once the target formation has been reached, and a determination has been made as to whether or not the formation has commercial potential, the well is made ready for production by a process termed “well completion.” Well completion involves cleaning the well to remove drilling fluids and debris, perforating the casing that lines the producing formation
Since UOG resources are extracted from formations with low porosity and low permeability in which the natural reservoir and fluid characteristics do not permit the oil and/or natural gas to readily flow to the wellbore, hydraulic fracturing is often used to complete the well and extract UOG resources.
Hydraulic fracturing involves the injection of fracturing fluids (
The amount of fracturing fluid required per well typically depends on the well trajectory (
Because laterals in horizontally drilled UOG wells are between 1,000 and 5,000 feet long, operators typically hydraulically fracture horizontal wells in stages to maintain the high pressures necessary to stimulate the well over the entire length. Stages are completed starting with the stage at the end of the wellbore and working back towards the wellhead.
Once the stage is hydraulically fractured, a stage plug is inserted down the wellbore separating it from additional stages until all stages are completed. After all of the stages have been completed, the plugs are drilled out of the wellbore allowing the fracturing fluids and other fluids to return to the surface. At the wellhead,
A portion of produced water can return to the wellhead at this time; this waste stream is often referred to as “flowback” and consists of the portion of fracturing fluid injected into the wellbore that returns to the surface during initial well depressurization often combined with formation water.
The flowback period typically lasts from a few days to a few weeks before the production phase commences (DCN SGE00010; DCN SGE00011; DCN SGE00622; DCN SGE00592; DCN SGE00286). At some wells, the majority of fracturing fluid can be recovered within a few hours (DCN SGE00010; DCN SGE00011; DCN SGE00622; DCN SGE00592; DCN SGE00286). See TDD, Chapter B.3.
After the initial flowback period, the well begins producing oil and/or gas; this next phase is referred to as the production phase. During the production phase, UOG wells produce oil and/or gas and generate long-term produced water. Long-term produced water, generated during the well production phase after the initial flowback process, consists primarily of formation water and continues to be produced throughout the lifetime of the well, though typically at much lower rates than flowback (DCN SGE00592). This long-term produced water is typically stored onsite in tanks or pits (DCN SGE00280; DCN SGE00275
UOG extraction wastewater, as EPA proposes to define it (see Section VII.B.) includes the following sources of wastewater pollutants:
• Produced water—the water (brine) brought up from the hydrocarbon-bearing strata during the extraction of oil and gas. This can include formation water, injection water, and any chemicals added downhole or during the oil/water separation process. Based on the stage of completion and production the well is in, produced water can be further broken down into the following components:
○ Flowback—After the hydraulic fracturing procedure is completed and pressure is released, the direction of fluid flow reverses, and the fluid flows up through the wellbore to the surface. The water that returns to the surface is commonly referred to as “flowback.”
○ Long-term produced water—This is the wastewater generated by UOG wells during the production phase of the well after the flowback process. Long-term produced water continues to be produced throughout the lifetime of the well.
• Drilling wastewater, including pollutants from:
○ Drill cuttings—The particles generated by drilling into subsurface geologic formations and carried out from the wellbore with the drilling fluid.
○ Drilling muds—The circulating fluid (mud) used in the rotary drilling of wells to clean and condition the hole and to counterbalance formation pressure.
• Produced sand—The slurried particles used in hydraulic fracturing, the accumulated formation sands and scales particles generated during production. Produced sand also includes desander discharge from the produced water waste stream, and blowdown of the water phase from the produced water treating system.
EPA identified drilling wastewater and produced water as the major sources of wastewater pollutants associated with UOG extraction, therefore, these wastewaters are described further below.
As discussed in Section XII.B.1., operators inject drilling fluids down the well bore during drilling to cool the drill bit and to remove fragments of rock (drill cuttings) from the wellbore (DCN SGE00090; DCN SGE00274). Drilling fluid can be water or synthetic based. Air has recently been used in place of drilling fluids in the vertical phase of wells. Operators can use a combination of drilling fluids and air during the drilling process of a single well. The drilling fluid used depends on the properties of the formation, the depth, and associated regulations, safety, and cost considerations (DCN SGE00090; DCN SGE00635; TDD Chapter B.3).
When returned to the surface, ground rock removed from the wellbore (drill cuttings) is entrained in the drilling fluid. Operators separate the solids from the drilling fluid on the surface, striving to remove as much solids (drill cuttings) from the drilling fluid as possible. The separation process generates two streams: a solid waste stream referred to as drill cuttings and a liquid waste stream referred to as drilling wastewater. Operators typically transfer their drill cuttings to a landfill (DCN SGE00090; DCN SGE00635). Drilling wastewater is often reused/recycled until well drilling is complete (though in some cases it is processed for discharge and/or disposal).
At the end of drilling, operators use a variety of practices to manage drilling wastewater, primarily reuse/recycle in drilling subsequent wells. The following list presents drilling wastewater management options used by UOG operators (DCN SGE00740):
• Reuse/recycle wastewater in subsequent drilling and/or fracturing jobs
• Disposal via landfill
• Disposal via underground injection wells
• Land application
• Transfer wastewater to a centralized waste treatment (CWT) facility
• On-site burial
Nearly all of the volume of drilling fluid circulated during drilling is recovered as drilling wastewater and requires management. Typical drilling wastewater volumes for UOG drilling
As explained above, the portion of produced water that returns to the wellhead after the plugs are drilled out of the wellbore is often referred to as “flowback” and the largest daily volume of produced water generated occurs during the flowback period. Over time, flowback rates decrease as the well begins to produce oil and gas. Initially, flowback has characteristics that can resemble the fracturing fluid. During the flowback period, the generated wastewater increasingly resembles characteristics of the underlying formation.
The volume of flowback produced by a well varies, and it is often looked at in relation to the volume of the fracturing fluid used to fracture the well (as explained in Section XII.B.2. above, fracturing fluid volumes used depend on many factors, including the total number of stages drilled). Flowback recovery percentages also vary due to factors such as resource type (
After flowback generation, long-term produced water is generated during the well production phase. Long-term produced water has characteristics that primarily reflect the formation. The long-term produced water flow rate from a UOG well gradually decreases over time. In addition, the amount of produced water generated per well varies by formation. Median long-term produced water flow rates vary by resource type (
EPA reviewed published characterization data for UOG extraction wastewater. Produced water data included measurements of TDS, anions/cations, metals, hardness, radioactive constituents, and organics. The characteristics of UOG produced water vary primarily depending on the characteristics of the UOG formation (DCN SGE00090). Drilling wastewater characterization data included suspended solids, salts, metals, and organics. Because drilling wastewater is typically recycled/re-used for drilling another well, detailed pollutant specific information is less readily available for drilling wastewater than for produced water. As such, the remainder of this section is specific to produced water.
TDS provides a measure of the dissolved matter, including salts (
Salts are the majority of TDS in UOG produced water, and sodium chloride constitutes approximately 50 percent of the TDS in UOG produced water (DCN SGE00046). In addition to sodium and chloride, UOG produced water typically contains divalent cations such as calcium, strontium, magnesium, and, in some formations, barium and radium. Other ions such as potassium, bromide, fluoride, nitrate, nitrite, phosphate, and sulfate can also contribute to TDS in UOG produced water. Metals, other than those contributing to TDS (
Organic constituents in UOG produced water can originate from both the fracturing fluid that is injected down the wellbore and from the UOG formation itself. Organic constituents and hydrocarbons in UOG produced water appear to be less frequently sampled in comparison to the well-documented TDS concentrations. EPA has reviewed available data on organic pollutants in produced water and found a range of pollutant concentrations: phenol (0.7 to 460 parts per billion (ppb)), pyridine (1.1 to 2,600 ppb), benzene (0.99 to 800,000 ppb), ethyl benzene (0.63 to 650 ppb), toluene (0.91 to 1,700,000 ppb), and total xylenes (3 to 440,000 ppb) (DCN SGE00724). See TDD, Chapter C.3.
Oil and gas formations contain varying levels of radioactivity resulting from uranium decay which can be transferred to UOG produced water. Radioactive decay products typically include uranium 238, radium 226, and radium 228. EPA identified available data on some radioactive elements in UOG produced water, including radium 226, radium 228, gross alpha, and gross beta, and, therefore, focused the radioactive constituent discussion and data presentation on data for these parameters. Radium 226, which has a half-life over 1,000 years, has been found in UOG produced water at concentrations up to 16,900 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) (DCN SGE00241; DCN SGE00724). As a point of comparison, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) published a report in 2014 that included radium isotope concentrations in rivers and lakes. The average of measured concentrations of radium 226 found in U.S. rivers and lakes was 0.56 pCi/L (21 millibecquerel per liter (mBq/L)) and the measured values ranged from 0.01 to 1.7 pCi/L (0.37 to 63 mBq/L) (DCN SGE00769). Data for radium 228 were limited.
Data characterizing produced water radioactivity concentrations were not available for all shale and tight oil and gas formations. However, the available data
Historically, UOG operators primarily managed their wastewater using the following four methods:
• Disposal via underground injection wells;
• Reuse in subsequent fracturing jobs;
• Transfer to a POTW; or
• Transfer to a privately owned wastewater treatment facility (also called a CWT facility).
(DCN SGE00613; DCN SGE00276); DCN SGE00528).
The frequency with which UOG operators use each of the management options listed above varies by operator, formation, and sometimes within each region of the formation (DCN SGE00579; DCN SGE00276). Relative cost is also an important factor for an UOG operator when considering how to manage their wastewater. This proposed rule addresses only transfers to a POTW. Historically, the oil and gas industry has most commonly managed its wastewater by underground injection (DCN SGE00182), but the industry is increasingly turning to reuse, and in some areas transfer to CWT facilities, to manage increasing volumes of UOG extraction wastewater (see TDD, Chapter D).
Underground injection involves pumping wastes into a deep underground formation with a confining layer of impermeable rock. The receiving formation must also be porous enough to accept the wastewater. In previous decades, and in most oil and gas basins, drillers found underground injection of oil and gas extraction wastewater to be the most economical and reliable means of disposal; this is similarly the case today (DCN SGE00623). As of 2009, over 90 percent of oil and gas wastewater (conventional and unconventional) was disposed of via Class II injection wells (DCN SGE00623; DCN SGE00132).
The availability of underground injection as a disposal method varies by state. Some states have a large number of Class II disposal wells (
Reuse involves mixing flowback and/or long-term produced water from previously fractured wells with source water
In considering whether to reuse wastewater, operators evaluate wastewater generation rates compared to water demand for new fracturing jobs, water quality and treatment requirements for use in fracturing, and the risks and costs of wastewater management and transportation for reuse compared to disposal, or transfer practices. Typically, for an operator to reuse wastewater, the cost per barrel for reuse must be less than the cost per barrel for disposal or transfer (DCN SGE00095). The cost for reuse depends on several factors that vary by formation and operator; and, therefore, the potential for reusing UOG extraction wastewater for fracturing varies by formation and operator.
Since the late 2000s, UOG operators have increased wastewater reuse (DCN SGE00613). The Petroleum Equipment Suppliers Association (PESA) surveyed 205 UOG operators in 2012 about their wastewater management practices. Survey results included 143 operators active in major UOG formations. UOG operators reported reusing 23 percent of the total volume of wastewater generated to refracture another well. The survey results also showed that most operators anticipated reusing higher percentages of their wastewater in the two to three years following the survey (DCN SGE00707; DCN SGE00708; DCN SGE00575). EPA participated in several site visits and conference calls with operators in several UOG formations that have been able to reuse 100 percent of the volume of their wastewater under certain circumstances (DCN SGE00625; DCN SGE00635; DCN SGE00275; DCN SGE00636).
Some operators manage UOG extraction wastewater by transporting it to CWT facilities for treatment. Following treatment, these facilities can return it to an operator for reuse to fracture another well (“zero discharge”) and/or discharge it, either to surface water or to a POTW. Operators can choose to use CWT facilities if they drill and complete relatively few wells, making discharging to CWT facilities more feasible than investing in other management options (DCN SGE00300), or if other wastewater management options are not available or cost effective in the region where they are operating (DCN SGE00139; DCN SGE00182). EPA identified 73 commercial CWT facilities that accept UOG extraction wastewater. See TDD, Chapter D.3. EPA found that the number of CWT facilities available to operators in the Marcellus and Utica Shale formations has increased with the number of wells drilled. A similar trend was observed in the Fayetteville Shale formation in Arkansas (DCN SGE00704).
Operators can haul their wastewater to “zero discharge” CWT facilities that treat but do not discharge UOG extraction wastewater, either to surface water or to a POTW. Instead, they return the wastewater to UOG operators for reuse in subsequent hydraulic fracturing jobs. Commercial CWT facilities that fall into this category typically allow operators to unload a truck load of wastewater for treatment and take a load of treated wastewater on a cost per barrel basis (DCN SGE00245). Some of these facilities offer operators the option of unloading a truck load of wastewater without taking a load of treated wastewater for a surcharge, as long as other operators are in need of additional treated wastewater. The CWT facility can also provide this service if it can dispose of the wastewater without discharge (DCN SGE00299). For example, one facility in Wyoming treats UOG extraction wastewater for reuse by removing TDS and other pollutants through electrocoagulation followed by reverse osmosis (RO). The facility evaporates the concentrated brine from the RO unit in large evaporation ponds to dispose of wastewater not reused by operators (DCN SGE00374).
Some operators can haul their wastewater to CWT facilities that discharge directly to surface waters. Discharges from these CWT facilities are controlled by NDPES permits that include pollutant discharge limitations based on the technology-based ELGs set out in 40 CFR part 437 (representing the floor), or more stringent WQBELs where the technology-based effluent limits are not sufficiently stringent to meet applicable state water quality standards. The ELGs established by EPA for CWTs do not include limitations for TDS; however, to meet applicable state water quality standards, direct discharging CWT facilities can use treatment processes (
Finally, other operators can haul their wastewater to CWT facilities that discharge indirectly to a POTW. Discharges from the CWT facility to the POTW are controlled by an Industrial User Agreement (IUA) that must incorporate the pretreatment standards set out in 40 CFR part 437.
Historically, in locations such as in Pennsylvania where disposal wells and CWT facilities were limited, operators managed UOG extraction wastewater by transfer to POTWs (DCN SGE00011; DCN SGE00739; DCN SGE00598). This practice can be problematic because POTWs are not able to remove many of the constituents found in UOG extraction wastewater (DCN SGE00011; DCN SGE00600; DCN SGE00765). Because they are not typical of POTW influent wastewater, UOG extraction wastewater constituents can be discharged, largely untreated, from the POTW to the receiving stream; can disrupt the operation of the POTW (
In developing ELGs, EPA can divide an industry category into groupings called “subcategories” to provide a method for addressing variations among products, processes, and other factors, which result in distinctly different effluent characteristics that affect the determination of the “best available” technology. See
Within the oil and gas extraction category, EPA has already established subcategories. As explained in Section VIII.C., the existing oil and gas extraction ELGs are divided into five subcategories. The scope of the proposed rule is specific to subpart C: onshore. The proposed rule is specific to pollutant discharges from UOG extraction as defined in Section XI. EPA considered whether further subcategorization of the UOG extraction industry was warranted. EPA evaluated a number of factors including available data regarding wastewater chemical constituents, generation volumes, and rates. Although some differences can be observed among these characteristics (between different types of unconventional resource and geologic formations, and sometimes between wells within the same source), EPA proposes that further subcategorization is not appropriate because EPA has not identified any onshore UOG operations that currently discharge to POTWs.
EPA proposes to establish PSES and PSNS that apply to wastewater discharges from onshore UOG extraction facilities. Generally, EPA designs PSES and PSNS to ensure that wastewaters from direct and indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar levels of treatment prior to discharge to waters of the U.S. This means that, typically, the requirements for indirect dischargers are analogous to those for direct dischargers. As explained in Section VIII.C., the existing requirements for BPT for the Onshore Subcategory are zero discharge of wastewater pollutants into waters of the U.S. from any source associated with production, field exploration, drilling, well completion, or well treatment. As also explained in Section VIII.C., the existing BPT requirements do not apply to discharges to POTWs.
Most POTWs are designed primarily to treat municipally generated wastewater. POTWs typically provide at least secondary level treatment and, thus, are designed to remove settleable solids, suspended solids and organic material using biological treatment. EPA is not aware of any POTWs that are designed to treat dissolved pollutants in UOG extraction wastewater such as TDS (
As explained in Section XII.E., EPA evaluated the practices currently used to manage UOG extraction wastewaters. Based on the information reviewed as part of this proposed rulemaking, EPA identified that current industry practice is not to discharge pollutants from onshore UOG extraction to POTWs. Rather, the vast majority of this wastewater is managed by disposal in underground injection wells and/or re-use in fracturing another well.
Because of this information, EPA identified one candidate PSES/PSNS option; that is, zero discharge of wastewater pollutants to POTWs. UOG extraction wastewater is discussed in Section XII.C.
The technology basis for the proposed PSES is disposal in UIC wells and/or wastewater reuse/recycling to fracture another well. Because existing UOG extraction facilities currently employ alternative wastewater management practices, the technology basis for meeting a zero discharge requirement is widely available. While EPA estimates that there will be no incremental pollutant reductions associated with the proposed PSES, the technology basis is best performing in that it achieves zero discharges of pollutants in UOG extraction wastewater. Additionally, because this technology represents current industry practice nationwide, no facilities will incur incremental costs for compliance with the proposed PSES and, therefore, the proposed PSES is economically achievable. For the same reasons, the proposed PSES will result in no incremental non-water quality environmental impacts. Finally, because the proposal represents current industry practice, EPA proposes that PSES requiring zero discharge of wastewater pollutants be effective as of the effective date of this rule.
As previously noted, under section 307(c) of the CWA, new sources of pollutants into POTWs must comply with standards which reflect the greatest degree of effluent reduction achievable through application of the best available demonstrated control technologies. Congress envisioned that new treatment systems could meet tighter controls than existing sources because of the opportunity to incorporate the most efficient processes and treatment systems into the facility design. EPA proposes PSNS that would control the same pollutants using the same technologies proposed for control by PSES. The technologies used to control
In addition to the PSES/PSNS option of zero discharge of wastewater pollutants, EPA also considered the option of no proposed PSES or PSNS, a “no rule” option. Based on the discussion above that no UOG facilities are currently transferring wastewater to POTWs, and given available alternative management options such as disposal in UIC wells and reuse/recycling, EPA considered the option of no proposed rule. A “no rule” option would impose no change to the existing pretreatment regulatory regime, or industry practice, and would, therefore, be a “no incremental cost and pollutant reduction” option.
EPA, however, did not select this “no rule” option for several reasons. First, there is no national federal regulation that would prevent or require pretreatment of such discharges—and, as mentioned above, EPA is not aware of any POTWs that are designed to treat dissolved pollutants common in UOG extraction wastewater. This means that constituents of such wastewater could be discharged to receiving waters when other [available] options such as reuse and proper disposal in a Class II UIC well better protect water quality and aquatic communities and help further the zero discharge goal of the CWA. CWA section 101(a)(1). Second, as detailed in Chapter A.2 of the TDD, few states have regulations or policies that prevent discharges of pollutants in UOG extraction wastewater to POTWs or that mandate pre-treatment prior to discharge to a POTW. In the absence of such regulations or policies, resource-constrained control authorities and/or POTWs who receive requests to accept UOG extraction wastewater would be in the position of having to evaluate whether to accept transfers of wastewater on a case-by-case basis. Third, history demonstrates that absent controls preventing the transfer of or requiring pretreatment of such wastewater, POTWs can accept it, as occurred in Pennsylvania (see TDD Chapters A.2 and D.5), where POTWs were used to manage UOG extraction wastewater until the state took action, including promulgating new regulations requiring pretreatment. Among the drivers behind these actions taken by Pennsylvania was that some waters were impaired by TDS. (DCN SGE00187).
To avoid future scenarios where POTWs receive UOG extraction wastewater, it is reasonable to codify the good practice already adopted by the industry that is technologically and economically viable. Moreover, it is beneficial to the states as a practical matter to establish federal regulations that mandate this existing practice, in order to avoid the burden for each state to potentially repeat the effort of promulgating state-level regulations. EPA has discussed this proposed rule with several states, who have indicated that a federal pretreatment standard would reduce their administrative burden (DCN SGE00762; DCN SGE00762; DCN SGE00743).
EPA also considered the future burden that continued lack of pretreatment standards can impose on POTWs. The UOG extraction industry is predicted to continue to grow in the future, resulting in the installation, fracturing, and possible refracturing of hundreds of thousands of wells. Well operators will continue to generate UOG extraction wastewater and could request local POTWs to accept their wastewater for discharge. In the absence of federal pretreatment standards, POTWs can legally accept UOG extraction wastewater to the extent that such wastewater transfers are in compliance with state and local requirements. Evaluating each potential customer (industrial user), developing a determination for each new UOG extraction wastewater source on a case-by-case basis could be burdensome for POTWs. In addition, where a POTW determines it can accept this wastewater, complying with applicable reporting requirements could be a significant burden to some POTWs. EPA concluded that a national-level determination that UOG extraction wastewater contains pollutant concentrations that could pass through POTWs, and development of categorical pretreatment standards, will avoid burdening individual POTWs with evaluating each individual request. Thus, the national categorical pretreatment standards will reduce the process burden on pretreatment Control Authorities (
Moreover, as explained above, because some pollutants of concern in UOG extraction wastewater will not be physically, chemically, or biologically reduced by the treatment processes typically used at POTWs, these pollutants are expected to be discharged from the POTW into receiving waters. In addition, these pollutants can cause operational problems for the POTW's biological treatment processes and alter the POTW's ability to adequately remove BOD, TSS, and other pollutants for which it is regulated. For some UOG pollutants, such as radionuclides, the data indicate POTWs will remove some portion while discharging the remainder (DCN SGE00136). In these cases, some portion of the radionuclides will partition to the POTW biosolids, which can cause the POTW to incur increased costs to change its selected method of biosolids management (DCN SGE00615). See also TDD Chapter D.5.
Finally, EPA did not select the “no rule” option because it concluded that national pretreatment standards provide clear direction and certainty to industry, POTWs, states, and the public that UOG extraction wastewaters are not treated by POTWs and should not be transferred to them. Categorical pretreatment standards support the CWA goal that the discharge of pollutants into the nation's navigable waters be eliminated. CWA section 101(a).
EPA considered an option that would have included non-zero numerical discharge pre-treatment requirements prior to discharge to a POTW. Such an
EPA does not propose an option with numerical discharge pretreatment requirements prior to discharge to a POTW for the following reasons. First, the existing requirements for direct discharges of UOG extraction wastewater in the Onshore Subcategory require no discharge of pollutants. As explained above, EPA generally establishes requirements for direct and indirect discharges so that the wastewater receives comparable treatment prior to discharge to waters of the U.S.
Second, the option EPA proposes, zero discharge of pollutants in UOG extraction wastewater to POTWs, is widely available, economically achievable and has no incremental (and, therefore, acceptable) non-water quality environmental impacts. Because the proposed zero pollutant discharge requirement is current practice and, therefore, clearly both available and achievable, any option that includes non-zero discharge requirements for any pollutants would potentially increase pollutant discharges from current industry best practices. Such an option would not fulfill the CWA requirement to establish limitations based on “Best Available Technology Economically Achievable” (CWA section 301(b)(2)(A)), or the CWA goals of eliminating the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters (CWA section 101(a)(1)).
Third, EPA does not have any data to demonstrate that UIC capacity nationwide will be expended and that this current management approach will not be available in the future (DCN SGE00613). In fact, industry has been managing oil and gas extraction wastewater through underground injection for decades. In recent years, industry has greatly expanded its knowledge about the ability to re-use UOG flowback and long-term produced water (the major contributors to UOG extraction wastewater by volume) in fracturing another well. Consequently, while the UOG industry continues to grow and new wells are being fractured, the need for UIC capacity for UOG extraction wastewater is decreasing, even in geographic locations with an abundance of UIC capacity (see TDD Chapter D.2).
Fourth, EPA identified technologies that currently exist to treat dissolved pollutants in UOG extraction wastewater. Relative to underground injection and reuse/recycling to fracture another well (the basis for the preferred option EPA proposes), these technologies are costly, would result in more pollutant discharges, and are energy intensive. While EPA did not attempt to calculate a numerical standard for TDS, data collected for this proposed rulemaking demonstrate that the current technologies are capable of reducing TDS (and other dissolved pollutants) well below 500 mg/L. To the extent that these technologies or others are developed in the future to reduce pollutants in UOG extraction wastewater to enable them to be reused for purposes other than fracturing another well, these pre-treated wastewaters can be used directly for the other applications without going through a POTW.
As explained in Section VIII., while the existing oil and gas regulation applies to both conventional and UOG extraction (except coalbed methane), the proposed rule would add pretreatment standards only for facilities engaged in oil and gas extraction from UOG sources that send their discharges to POTWs. EPA proposes to reserve standards for conventional oil and gas extraction for possible future rulemaking, if appropriate. This is consistent with EPA's stated scope throughout the development of this proposed rule. See specific comment solicitation on conventional oil and gas extraction wastewaters in Section VII.
Since the effectiveness of the technology basis for the proposed standards results in zero discharge of all pollutants, it is not appropriate in this proposed rule to further specify the pollutants of concern. Rather, as is the case for the existing BPT requirements, the proposed PSES/PSNS apply to the discharge of all pollutants in UOG extraction wastewater.
Sections 307(b) and (c) of the CWA authorize EPA to promulgate pretreatment standards for pollutants that are not susceptible to treatment by POTWs or which would interfere with the operation of POTWs. EPA looks at a number of factors in selecting the technology basis for pretreatment standards for existing and new sources. These factors are generally the same as those considered in establishing the direct discharge technology basis. However, unlike direct dischargers whose wastewater will receive no further treatment once it leaves the facility, indirect dischargers send their wastewater to POTWs for further treatment.
Therefore, before establishing PSES/PSNS for a pollutant, EPA examines whether the pollutant “passes through” a POTW to waters of the U.S. or interferes with the POTW operation or biosolids disposal practices. In determining whether a pollutant would pass through POTWs for these purposes, EPA generally compares the percentage of a pollutant removed by well-operated POTWs performing secondary treatment to the percentage removed by a candidate technology basis. A pollutant is determined to pass through POTWs when the median percentage removed nationwide by well-operated POTWs is less than the median percentage removed by the candidate technology basis. Pretreatment standards are established for those pollutants regulated under the direct discharge level of control (typically BAT/NSPS) that passes through. In addition, EPA can regulate pollutants that do not pass through but otherwise interfere with POTW operations or biosolids disposal practices. This approach to the definition of pass through satisfies two competing objectives set by Congress: (1) That standards for indirect dischargers be equivalent to standards for direct dischargers, and (2) that the treatment capability and performance of POTWs be recognized and taken into account in regulating the discharge of pollutants from indirect dischargers.
Historically, EPA's primary source of POTW removal data is its 1982 “Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works” (also known as the 50 POTW Study) (see DCN SGE00765). The 50 POTW study presents data on the performance of 50 POTWs achieving secondary treatment in removing certain toxic pollutants. While the 50 POTW study demonstrates a wide variability in the effectiveness of POTWs in removing toxic pollutants, it demonstrates that POTWs remove these pollutants by less
UOG production generates significant volumes of wastewater that need to be managed. As described in Section XII.C.2, wells can produce flowback volumes ranging between 210,000 and 2,100,000 gallons during the initial flowback process.
In general, evidence of environmental impacts to surface waters from discharges of UOG extraction wastewater is sparsely documented. Some of the environmental impacts documented to date, such as increased DBP formation in downstream drinking water treatment plants, resulted from wastewater pollutants that passed untreated through POTWs in Pennsylvania (TDD, Chapter D.5).
As described in Section XII.D., high concentrations of TDS are common in UOG extraction wastewater. As shown in Table XII-2. (in Section XII.D.), major inorganic constituents leaching from geologic formations such as sodium, potassium, bromide, calcium, fluoride, nitrate, phosphate, chloride, sulfate, and magnesium represent most of the TDS in UOG extraction wastewater. TDS in produced water can also include barium, radium, and strontium. Based on available data, TDS cations (positively charged ions) in UOG extraction wastewater are generally dominated by sodium and calcium, and the anions (negatively charged ions) are dominated by chloride (DCN SGE00284). TDS concentrations vary among the UOG formations. Table XII-1. (in Section XII.D.), presents the varying TDS concentrations in tight and shale oil and gas formations. The highest median TDS concentration (370,000 mg/L) is found in the Pearsall shale gas formation. For comparison, sea water contains approximately 35,000 mg/L TDS.
Conventional POTW treatment operations are designed primarily to treat organic waste and remove total suspended solids and constituents responsible for biochemical oxygen demand, not to treat waters with high TDS. When transfers of UOG extraction wastewater to POTWs were occurring in Pennsylvania, these POTWs, lacking adequate TDS removal processes, diluted UOG extraction wastewaters with other sewage flows and discharged TDS-laden effluent into local streams and rivers. POTWs not sufficiently treating TDS in UOG extraction wastewater were a suspected source of elevated TDS levels in the Monongahela River in 2009 (DCN SGE00525). Also see TDD, Chapter D.5 for additional examples.
In addition to UOG wastewater pollutants passing through POTWs, other industrial discharges of inadequately treated UOG extraction wastewater pollutants have also been associated with in-stream impacts. One study reviewed by EPA of discharges from a CWT facility in western Pennsylvania that treats UOG extraction wastewater examined the water quality and isotopic compositions of discharged effluents, surface waters, and stream sediments (DCN SGE00629).
UOG extraction wastewater TDS levels are high enough, if discharged untreated to surface water, to affect adversely a number of designated uses of surface water, including drinking water, aquatic life support, livestock watering, irrigation, and industrial use.
Available data indicate the levels of TDS in UOG extraction wastewaters can often significantly exceed recommended drinking water concentrations. Because TDS concentrations in drinking water sources are typically well below the recommended drinking water levels, few drinking water treatment facilities have technologies to remove TDS. Two published standards for TDS in drinking water include the U.S. Public Health Service recommendation and EPA's secondary maximum contaminant level recommendation that TDS in drinking water should not exceed 500 mg/L. High concentrations of TDS in drinking water primarily degrade its taste rather than pose a human health risk. Taste surveys found that water with less than 300 mg/L TDS is considered excellent, and water with TDS above 1,100 mg/L is unacceptable (DCN SGE00939). The World Health Organization dropped its health-based recommendations for TDS in 1993, instead retaining 1,000 mg/L as a secondary standard for taste (DCN SGE00947).
EPA also reviewed a study concerning unintentional creation of harmful DBPs due to insufficient removal of bromide and other UOG wastewater constituents by POTWs accepting UOG extraction wastewaters (DCN SGE00535; DCN SGE00587). DBPs have been shown to have both adverse human health and ecological affects. The study found that UOG extraction wastewaters contain various inorganic and organic DBP precursors that can react with disinfectants used by POTWs to promote the formation of DBPs, or alter speciation of DBPs, particularly brominated-DBPs, which are suspected to be among the more toxic DBPs (DCN SGE00535; DCN SGE00985). These precursors are a concern for drinking water managers wherever they can enter raw water intakes. See TDD, Chapter D.5 for further discussion of DBP formation associated with UOG extraction wastewaters.
TDS and its accompanying salinity play a primary role in the distribution and abundance of aquatic animal and plant communities. High levels of TDS can impact aquatic biota through increases in salinity, loss of osmotic balance in tissues, and toxicity of individual ions. Increases in salinity have been shown to cause shifts in biotic communities, limit biodiversity, exclude less-tolerant species and cause acute or chronic effects at specific life stages (DCN SGE00946). A detailed study of plant communities associated with irrigation drains, reported substantial changes in marsh communities in part because of an increase in dissolved solids (DCN SGE00941). Observations over time indicate a shift in plant community coinciding with increases in dissolved solids from estimated historic levels of 270 to 1170 mg/L, as species that are less salt tolerant such as coontail (
It is often a specific ion concentration in TDS that is responsible for adverse effects to aquatic ecosystems. For example, a TDS concentration of 2,000 mg/L with chloride as the primary anionic constituent is acutely toxic to aquatic life, but the same TDS concentration composed primarily of sulfate is nontoxic. Sodium chloride accounts for about 50 percent of the TDS typically found in UOG extraction wastewater. As reported in Table XII-2 (in Section XII.D.), chloride has been measured at concentrations up to 230,000 mg/L. Macroinvertebrates, such as fresh water shrimp and aquatic insects that are a primary prey of many fish species, have open circulatory systems that are especially sensitive to pollutants like chloride. Based on laboratory toxicity data from EPA's 1988 chloride criteria document and more recent studies, invertebrate sensitivity to chloride acute effect concentrations ranged from 953 mg/L to 13,691 mg/L. Chronic effect concentrations of chloride ranged from 489 mg/L to 556 mg/L. In addition to the laboratory data, EPA also reviewed data from a 2009 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection violation report documenting a fish kill attributed to a spill of diluted produced water in Hopewell Township, PA. TDS at the location of the fish kill was as high as 7,000 mg/L. While not related to UOG extraction wastewater, negative impacts of high TDS, including fish kills, were documented during 2009 at Dunkard Creek located in Monongalia County, Pennsylvania. (DCN SGE00001 and DCN SGE00001.A01)
EPA has published chemical-specific national recommended water quality criteria for some of the TDS constituents in UOG extraction wastewater, such as barium, chloride, manganese, and iron, based on a variety of human health or ecological benchmarks. A review of state and tribal water quality standards in 2012 indicated that 26 states had adopted a numeric or narrative criterion for TDS, either for state-wide or site-specific application (DCN SGE00945). The TDS criteria levels and the designated uses they are intended to protect vary greatly from state to state. For example, Alaska has a criterion of 1,500 mg/L TDS to protect aquatic life; Mississippi has a criterion of 750 mg/L monthly average for protection of fish, wildlife and recreation criteria, and Illinois has a statewide 1,000 mg/L TDS criterion for aquatic life and a 1,500 mg/L TDS criterion for secondary contact recreation and indigenous aquatic life. TDS criteria adopted specifically for the protection of aquatic life have been developed for at least 16 of the 26 states, with some criteria applying only to specific waterbodies. Oregon has the most stringent TDS criterion using a standard of 100 mg/L for all freshwater streams and tributaries in order to protect aquatic life, public water use, agriculture, and recreation.
POTW discharges to surface waters containing high concentrations of TDS can impact downstream uses for livestock watering. High TDS concentrations in water sources for livestock watering can adversely affect animal health by disrupting cellular osmotic and metabolic processes (DCN SGE01053). Domestic livestock, such as cattle, sheep, goats, horses, and pigs have varying degrees of sensitivity to TDS in drinking water as shown in Table XV-1. Sheep seem to be more tolerant of saline water than most domestic species, but will only drink it if introduced to the saline water over a period of several weeks (DCN SGE00937).
If UOG extraction wastewater discharges to POTWs increase TDS concentrations in receiving streams, downstream irrigation uses of that surface water can be negatively affected. Elevated TDS levels can limit the usefulness of water for irrigation. Excessive salts affect crop yield in the short term, and the soil structure in the long term. Primary direct impacts of high salinity water on plant crops include physiological drought, increased osmotic potential of soil, specific ion toxicity, leaf burn, and nutrient uptake interferences (DCN SGE00938). In general, for various classes of crops the salinity tolerance decreases in the following order: forage crops, field crops, vegetables, fruits.
The suitability of water for irrigation is classified using several different measurements, including TDS and electrical conductivity (EC). Table XV-2. shows a classification of TDS concentrations for irrigation suitability.
In addition to short-term impacts to crop plants, irrigating with high TDS water can result in gradual accumulation of salts or sodium in soil layers and eventual decrease in soil productivity. The susceptibility of soils to degradation is dependent on the soil type and structure. Sandy soils are less likely than finely textured soils to accumulate salts or sodium. Soils with a high water table or poor drainage are more susceptible to salt or sodium accumulation. The most common method of estimating the suitability of a soil for crop production is through calculation of its sodicity as estimated by the soil's sodium absorption ratio (SAR). The SAR value is calculated by the equation:
POTW discharges to surface waters are often upstream of industrial facilities that withdraw surface waters for various cooling and process uses. High levels of TDS can adversely affect industrial applications requiring the use of water in cooling tower operations, boiler feed water, food processing, and electronics manufacturing. Concentrations of TDS above 500 mg/L result in excessive corrosivity, scaling, and sedimentation in water pipes, water heaters, boilers and household appliances. Depending on the industry, TDS in intake water can interfere with chemical processes within the plant. Some industries requiring ultrapure water, such as semi-conductor manufacturing facilities, are particularly sensitive to high TDS levels due to the treatment cost for the removal of TDS.
Because the elimination or reduction of one form of pollution can create or aggravate other environmental problems, EPA considers non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy impacts) that can result from the implementation of proposed regulations. EPA evaluated the potential impact of the proposed pretreatment standards on air emissions, solid waste generation, and energy consumption.
The proposed PSES/PSNS would prohibit the discharge to POTWs of wastewater pollutants associated with UOG extraction. Because EPA knows of no POTWs that are currently accepting UOG extraction wastewater, the proposed PSES will require no changes in current industry wastewater management practices and, consequently, will have no incremental impacts on air emissions, solid waste generation, or energy consumption. Based on the reasoning that new sources will follow current industry practice, EPA projects no incremental non-water quality environmental impacts associated with PSNS.
Because the requirements of the proposed rule are based on current practice, EPA proposes that the PSES/NSPS standards based on the regulatory options being proposed apply on the effective date of the final rule.
A “bypass” is an intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility. An “upset” is an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations for indirect dischargers concerning bypasses and upsets are set forth at 40 CFR 403.16 and 403.17.
The CWA requires application of effluent limitations established pursuant to section 304 for direct dischargers and section 307 for all indirect dischargers. However, the statute provides for the modification of these national requirements in a limited number of circumstances. Moreover, the Agency
EPA can develop pretreatment standards different from the otherwise applicable requirements for an individual existing discharger if it is fundamentally different with respect to factors considered in establishing the standards applicable to the individual discharger. Such a modification is known as a “fundamentally different factors” (FDF) variance. See 40 CFR 403.13. EPA, in its initial implementation of the effluent guidelines program, provided for the FDF modifications in regulations. These were variances from the BCT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for toxic and nonconventional pollutants, and BPT limitations for conventional pollutants for direct dischargers. FDF variances for toxic pollutants were challenged judicially and ultimately sustained by the Supreme Court in
Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added new CWA section 301(n). This provision explicitly authorizes modifications of the otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or categorical pretreatment standards if a discharger is fundamentally different with respect to the factors specified in CWA section 304 or 403 (other than costs) from those considered by EPA in establishing the effluent limitations or pretreatment standards. CWA section 301(n) also defined the conditions under which EPA can establish alternative requirements. Under section 301(n), an application for approval of a FDF variance must be based solely on (1) information submitted during rulemaking raising the factors that are fundamentally different or (2) information the applicant did not have an opportunity to submit. The alternate limitation must be no less stringent than justified by the difference and must not result in markedly more adverse non-water quality environmental impacts than the national limitation or standard.
The legislative history of section 301(n) underscores the necessity for the FDF variance applicant to establish eligibility for the variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 403.13 are explicit in imposing this burden upon the applicant. The applicant must show that the factors relating to the discharge controlled by the applicant's permit that are claimed to be fundamentally different are, in fact, fundamentally different from those factors considered by EPA in establishing the applicable pretreatment standards. In practice, very few FDF variances have been granted for past ELGs. An FDF variance may be available to an existing source subject to the proposed PSES, but an FDF variance is not available to a new source that would be subject to PSNS.
This action is a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any proposed rule that would be subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business that is primarily engaged in Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction and Natural Gas Liquid Extraction by NAICS code 211111 and 211112 with fewer than 500 employees (based on Small Business Administration size standards).
After considering the economic impacts of the proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small entities that would be subject to the requirements of this proposed rule are small businesses that engage in UOG extraction as defined in Section XI. No small businesses will experience an impact because the proposed rulemaking does not impose any new requirement that is not already being met by the industry.
This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that can result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. As explained in Section VI.C., this proposed rule has no costs. Thus, this proposed rule would not be subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
This proposed rule also would not be subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. EPA has not identified any oil and gas facilities that are owned by small governments.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The proposed rule would not alter the basic state-federal scheme established in the CWA under which EPA authorizes states to carry out the NPDES permit program. EPA expects the proposed rule would have little effect on the relationship between, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among, the federal and state governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. Although this order does not apply to this action, as explained in Section IX., EPA coordinated closely with states through a workgroup, as well as outreach efforts to pretreatment coordinators and pretreatment authorities.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have substantial direct
Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action, EPA coordinated with tribal officials in developing this action. EPA coordinated with federally recognized tribal governments in May and June of 2014, sharing information about the UOG pretreatment standards proposed rulemaking with the National Tribal Caucus and the National Tribal Water Council. As part of this outreach effort, EPA collected data about UOG operations on tribal reservations, UOG operators that are affiliated with Indian tribes, and POTWs owned or operated by tribes that can accept industrial wastewaters (see DCN SGE00785). Based on this information, there are no tribes operating UOG wells that discharge wastewater to POTWs nor are there any tribes that own or operate POTWs that accept industrial wastewater from UOG facilities; therefore, this proposed rule will not impose any costs on tribes.
E.O. 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to rules that are economically significant according to E.O. 12866 and involve a health or safety risk that can disproportionately affect children. This proposed action would not be subject to E.O. 13045 because it is estimated to cost less than $100 million and does not involve a safety or health risk that can have disproportionately negative effects on children.
This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action will not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, as described in Section XVI. of the proposed rule.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the U.S.
EPA determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The proposed rule changes the control technology required but will neither increase nor decrease environmental protection (as described in Section VII.C.).
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify potential environmental justice considerations associated with this proposed regulation.
Environmental protection, Pretreatment, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control, Unconventional oil and gas extraction.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 435 be amended as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and 1361.
(a)
(b)
(1) There shall be no discharge of wastewater pollutants associated with production, field exploration, drilling, well completion, or well treatment for unconventional oil and gas extraction (
(2) For the purposes of this section,
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(a)
(b)
(1) There shall be no discharge of wastewater pollutants associated with production, field exploration, drilling, well completion, or well treatment for unconventional oil and gas extraction (
(2) For the purposes of this section, the definitions of unconventional oil and gas, drill cuttings, drilling muds, produced sand, and produced water are as specified in § 435.33(b)(2)(i) through (v).
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Proposed rule.
NASA is updating the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) with the goal of eliminating unnecessary regulation, streamlining overly-burdensome regulation, clarifying language, and simplifying processes where possible. This proposed rule is the third and final in a series and includes updates and revisions to 10 parts of the NFS. On January 18, 2011, President Obama signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13563, Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review, directing agencies to develop a plan for a retrospective analysis of existing regulations. The revisions to this proposed rule are part of NASA's retrospective plan under E.O. 13563 completed in August 2011.
Interested parties should submit comments to NASA at the address below on or before June 8, 2015 to be considered in formulation of the final rule.
Interested parties may submit comments, identified by RIN number 2700-AE19 via the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Cynthia Boots, NASA, Office of Procurement, email:
The NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) is codified at 48 CFR part 1800. Periodically, NASA performs a comprehensive review and analysis of the regulation, makes updates and corrections, and reissues the NASA FAR Supplement. The last reissue was in 2004. The goal of the review and analysis is to reduce regulatory burden where justified and appropriate and make the NFS content and processes more efficient and effective, faster and simpler, in support of NASA's mission. Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 13563, Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review, NASA is currently reviewing and revising the NFS with an emphasis on streamlining it and reducing associated burdens. Due to the volume of the NFS, these revisions are being made in increments. This proposed rule is the third and final rule. The three rules together will constitute the NFS update and reissue. This proposed rule includes regulatory revisions to the following ten parts of the NFS:
Further, this proposed rule provides notice that no regulatory changes will be made to the following ten parts of the NFS:
NASA analyzed the existing regulation to determine whether any portions should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed in order to make the regulation more efficient and effective. Special emphasis was placed on identifying and eliminating or simplifying overly burdensome processes that could be streamlined without jeopardizing Agency mission effectiveness. Additionally, NASA sought to identify current regulatory coverage that is not regulatory in nature, and to remove or relocate such coverage to internal guidance. In addition to substantive changes, this proposed rule includes administrative changes necessary to make minor corrections and updates.
Specifically, the changes in this proposed rule are summarized as follows:
1801.106 is revised to reflect currently approved OMB Information Collection Requests
1802.101 is revised to update the definition of Head of Contracting Activity to reflect internal organizational changes.
1805.303(a)(i) is revised to delete the dollar figure of $3.5 million but retain the reference to the threshold at FAR 5.303(a). Consequently, if the threshold at FAR 5.303(a) changes at any time, NFS 1805.303(a)(i) will continue to be correct and will not require rule-making to reflect the FAR change.
1807.107 and 1807.107-70 are deleted from the regulation. These sections provide NASA-internal direction to contracting officers and are not regulatory in nature. These sections, with minor edits, will remain non-codified internal guidance.
1807.7200 is revised to reflect a change to a Web site address.
1807.7201, the definition of “contract opportunity” is revised to delete “$25,000” and replace it with “the simplified acquisition threshold”.
1812.301, the list of NFS clauses authorized for use in acquisition of
1813.000 is deleted. This section is internal guidance. This cite stated that simplified acquisition procedures were not applicable to R&D contracts for which proposals were solicited via a NASA Research Announcement (NRA) or an Announcement of Opportunity (OA). Removing the text from the regulation removes unnecessary regulation and it permits NASA to utilize simplified acquisition procedures for R&D contracting, as appropriate.
1823.7001, NASA solicitation provisions and contract clauses, is revised to specify that a safety and health plan may be required for acquisitions above the simplified acquisition threshold when the work will be conducted completely or partly on a Federally-controlled facility. The revision also provides three options to the contracting officer concerning the requirement for a safety and health plan. The contracting officer may use the clause at 1852.223-70, Safety and Health, when the safety and health plan will be evaluated as part of proposal evaluation. The contracting officer may use the FAR clause 52.236-13, Accident Prevention, and its Alternate I, when the safety and health plan will submitted after contract award for approval. The contracting officer may use the clause at 1852.223-72, Safety and Health (Short Form), when a safety and health plan is not required to be submitted under the contract. Additionally, when using the FAR clause at 52.236-13 with its Alternate I, the contracting officer is authorized to modify the wording in paragraph (f) of Alternate I to specify: (1) When the proposed plan is due and (2) Whether the contractor may commence work prior to approval of the plan; or (3) To what extent the contractor may commence work before the plan is approved.
1833.103 is revised to clarify that bidders or offerors may either protest directly to the contracting officer, or alternatively, request an independent review by the Assistant Administrator of Procurement, consistent with FAR 33.103.
Likewise, the corresponding clause at 1852.233 is revised to reflect the same clarification.
1833.106-70 and 1833.215 are revised to correct capitalization and lower case usage, consistent with FAR convention.
1836.513, Accident prevention, is revised to allow the use of FAR clause 52.236-13, Accident Prevention in certain circumstances, as specified at 1823.7001, when a safety and health plan is required under the contract but will not be evaluated with proposals.
1847, The clause at 1852.247-71, Protection of the Florida Manatee, is revised to reflect current technical requirements and organizational points of contact in order to ensure that information essential to protecting the endangered manatee will be properly conveyed to contractors working on-site at NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC). The clause was previously published as a proposed rule 73 FR 63420.
1850.104, Several administrative changes are made to the processing of contractor requests under the Safety Act. Although most of these changes involve internal NASA operations, the coverage will remain in the NFS because it is important for offerors to have a full understanding of agency activities related to the unique authority of the Safety Act.
1850.104-70 is deleted. This section assigned cognizance for indemnification applications to the NASA installation with the highest dollar value of contracts. The administrative changes to 1850.104 described immediately above clarify that all indemnity applications will be made to NASA HQ, with the NASA Administrator as the approval authority.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
NASA does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
The proposed rule contains no new information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1801, 1802, 1805, 1807, 1812, 1813, 1823, 1833, 1836, 1847, 1850, and 1852 are proposed to be amended as follows:
51 U.S.C. 20113(a).
(1)
51 U.S.C. 20113(a).
51 U.S.C. 20113(a).
(a)(i) In lieu of the threshold cited in FAR 5.303(a), a NASA Headquarters public announcement is required for award of contract actions that have a total anticipated value, including unexercised options, of $5 million or greater.
51 U.S.C. 20113(a).
(b) The annual forecast and semiannual update are available on the NASA Acquisition Internet Service (
51 U.S.C. 20113(a).
(f)(i) The following clauses are authorized for use in acquisitions of commercial items when required by the clause prescription:
(A) 1852.204-75, Security Classification Requirements.
(B) 1852.204-76, Security Requirements for Unclassified Information Technology Resources.
(C) 1852.215-84, Ombudsman.
(D) 1852.216-80, Task Order Procedures (Alternate I).
(E) 1852.216-88, Performance Incentive.
(F) 1852.219-73, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.
(G) 1852.219-75, Small Business Subcontracting Reporting.
(H) 1852.223-70, Safety and Health.
(I) 1852.223-71, Frequency Authorization.
(J) 1852.223-72, Safety and Health (Short Form).
(K) 1852.223-73, Safety and Health Plan.
(L) 1852.223-75, Major Breach of Safety and Security (Alternate I).
(M) 1852.225-70, Export Licenses.
(N) 1852.228-76, Cross-Waiver of Liability for International Space Station Activities.
(O) 1852.228-78, Cross-Waiver of Liability for Science or Space Exploration Activities Unrelated to the International Space Station.
(P) 1852.237-70, Emergency Evacuation Procedures.
(Q) 1852.237-72, Access to Sensitive Information.
(R) 1852.237-73, Release of Sensitive Information.
(S) 1852.246-72, Material Inspection and Receiving Report.
(T) 1852.247.71, Protection of the Florida Manatee.
The addition reads as follows:
(a) The term “anchor tenancy” means an arrangement in which the United States Government agrees to procure sufficient quantities of a commercial space product or service needed to meet Government mission requirements so that a commercial venture is made viable.
51 U.S.C. 20113(a).
51 U.S.C. 20113(a).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(c) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.223-73, Safety and Health Plan, in solicitations above the simplified acquisition threshold when the work will be conducted completely or partly on a Federally-controlled facility and the safety and health plan will be evaluated in source selection as approved by the source selection authority. This clause may be modified to identify specific information that is to be included in the plan. After receiving the concurrence of the center safety and occupational health official(s), the contracting officer shall incorporate the plan as an attachment into any resulting contract. The contracting officer shall insert the clause, with its Alternate I, in Invitations for Bid.
(d) The contracting officer shall insert FAR clause at 52.236-13 with its Alternate I in solicitations and contracts when the work will be conducted completely or partly on a Federally-controlled facility and a Safety and Health Plan will be reviewed after award as a contract deliverable. The contracting officer may modify the wording in paragraph (f) of Alternate I to specify:
(1) When the proposed plan is due; and
(2) Whether the contractor may commence work prior to approval of the plan; or
(3) To what extent the contractor may commence work before the plan is approved.
The requiring activity, in consultation with the cognizant health and safety official(s), will identify the data deliverable requirements for the safety and health plan. After receiving the concurrence of the center safety and occupational health official(s), the
(f) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.223-72, Safety and Health (Short Form) in solicitations and contracts above the simplified acquisition threshold when work will be conducted completely or partly on Federally-controlled facilities and that do not contain the clause at 1852.223-73 or the FAR clause at 52.236-13 with its Alternate I.
51 U.S.C. 20113(a).
(d)(4) The provision at 1852.233-70 provides for an alternative to a protest to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO). This alternative gives bidders or offerors the ability to protest directly to the contracting officer (CO) or to request an independent review by the Assistant Administrator for Procurement (or designee). The Agency review shall be deemed to be at the CO level when the request is silent as to the level of review desired. The Agency review shall be deemed to be at the level of the Assistant Administrator for Procurement (or designee) when the request specifies a level above the CO, even if the request doesn't specifically request an independent review by the Assistant Administrator for Procurement. Such reviews are separate and distinct from the Ombudsman Program described at 1815.7001.
(e) NASA shall summarily dismiss and take no further action upon any protest to the Agency if the substance of the protest is pending in judicial proceedings or the protester has filed a protest on the same acquisition with the GAO prior to receipt of an Agency protest decision.
(4) When a bidder or offeror submits an Agency protest to the CO or alternatively requests an independent review by the Assistant Administrator for Procurement, the decision of the CO or the Assistant Administrator for Procurement shall be final and is not subject to any appeal or reconsideration within NASA.
51 U.S.C. 20113(a).
For additional guidance on the use of FAR clause 52.236-13, Accident Prevention, and its Alternate I in NASA contracts, see 1823.7001(d).
51 U.S.C. 20113(a).
(a) Requests for the exercise of residual powers shall be sent to the Headquarters Office of Procurement, Program Operations Division for review and processing. The NASA Administrator is the approval authority for the Memorandum of Decision.
(a)
(ii) The Contractor's request for indemnification must identify a sufficient factual basis for indemnification by explaining specifically what work activities under the contract create the unusually hazardous or nuclear risk and identifying the timeframes in which the risk would be incurred.
(iii) The contractor shall also provide evidence, such as a certificate of insurance or other customary proof of insurance, that such insurance is either in force or is available and will be in force during the indemnified period.
(b)
(i) For contracts of five years duration or longer, a determination, with supporting rationale, whether the indemnification approval and insurance coverage and premiums should be reviewed for adequacy and continued validity at points in time within the extended contract period.
(ii) The specific definition of the unusually hazardous risk to which the contractor is exposed in the performance of the contract(s), including specificity about which activities present such risk and the anticipated timeframes in which the risk will be incurred;
(iv) A complete discussion of the contractor's financial protection program; and
(vi) The extent to, and conditions under, which indemnification is being approved for subcontracts.
(2) The NASA Administrator is the approval authority for using the indemnification clause in a contract by a Memorandum of Decision.
(4)(ii) If approving subcontractor indemnification, the contracting officer shall document the file with a memorandum for record addressing the items set forth in FAR 50.104-3(b) and include an analysis of the subcontractor's financial protection program. In performing this analysis, the contracting officer shall take into consideration the availability, cost, terms and conditions of insurance in relation to the unusually hazardous risk.
The contracting officer shall obtain the NASA Administrator's approval prior to including clause 52.250-1 in a contract.
51 U.S.C. 20113(a).
As prescribed in 1823.7001(f), insert the following clause:
(a) Safety is the freedom from those conditions that can cause death, injury, occupational illness; damage to or loss of equipment or property, or damage to the environment. NASA is committed to protecting the safety and health of the public, our team members, and those assets that the Nation entrusts to the Agency.
(b) The Contractor shall have a documented, comprehensive and effective health and safety program with a proactive process to identify, assess, and control hazards and take all reasonable safety and occupational health measures consistent with standard industry practice in performing this contract
(c) The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (c) in subcontracts that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold where work will be conducted completely or partly on Federally-controlled facilities.
As prescribed in 1823.7001(c), insert the following clause:
(a) The offeror shall submit a detailed safety and occupational health plan as part of its proposal. The plan shall include a detailed discussion of the policies, procedures, and techniques that will be used to ensure the safety and occupational health of Contractor employees and to ensure the safety of all working conditions throughout the performance of the contract.
(b) The plan shall similarly address subcontractor employee safety and occupational health for those proposed subcontracts or subcontract effort where the work will be conducted completely or partly on a Federally-controlled facility
(d) This plan, as approved by the Contracting Officer, will be incorporated into any resulting contract.
As prescribed in 1823.7001(c)(1), delete the first sentence in paragraph (a) of the basic provision and substitute the following:
The apparent low bidder, upon request by the Contracting Officer, shall submit a detailed safety and occupational health plan. The plan shall be submitted within the time specified by the Contracting Officer. Failure to submit an acceptable plan shall make the bidder ineligible for the award of a contract.
As prescribed in 1833.106-70, insert the following provision:
(a) In lieu of a protest to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), bidders or offerors may submit a protest under 48 CFR part 33 (FAR part 33) directly to the Contracting Officer for consideration by the Agency. Alternatively, bidders or offerors may request an independent review by the Assistant Administrator for Procurement, who will serve as or designate the official responsible for conducting an independent review. Such reviews are separate and distinct from the Ombudsman Program described at 1815.7001.
(b) Bidders or offerors shall specify whether they are submitting a protest to the Contracting Officer or requesting an independent review by the Assistant Administrator for Procurement.
(c) Protests to the Contracting Officer shall be submitted to the address or email specified in the solicitation (email is an acceptable means for submitting a protest to the Contracting Officer). Alternatively, requests for independent review by the Assistant Administrator for Procurement shall be addressed to the Assistant Administrator for Procurement, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20456-0001.
As prescribed in 1847.7001, insert the following clause:
(a) Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-205), as amended, and the Marine Mammals Protection Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-522), the Florida Manatee
(b) All contractor personnel shall be responsible for complying with all applicable Federal and/or state permits (
(c) The Contractor shall incorporate the provisions of this clause in applicable subcontracts.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments; correction.
NMFS published a proposed rule in the
We will accept comments on the March 19, 2015, (80 FR 14345) proposed rule that are received or postmarked on or before April 20, 2015.
You may submit comments on the March 19, 2015, proposed rule, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0012, by either of the following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields.
3. Enter or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to Kim Damon-Randall, Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS Greater Atlantic Region, 55 Great Republic Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930, Attn: Large Whale Proposed Rule.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
Kate Swails, NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 978-282-8481,
In a proposed rule that published in the
The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) announces that it is inviting proposals for the 2016 Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) program. The intended effect of this notice is to solicit applications from the private sector and from government agencies for fiscal year 2016 and to set out criteria for the award of funds in October 2015. The TASC program is administered by personnel of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS).
To be considered for funding, applications must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, June 8, 2015. Any applications received after this time will be considered only if funds are still available.
Entities wishing to apply for funding assistance should contact the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service
Prior to the enactment of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Act) on February 7, 2014, the TASC program was not available to address technical barriers to trade except for those that were related to sanitary or phytosanitary issues. The Act amended the statute authorizing the TASC program to allow the program to be used to address technical barriers to trade regardless of whether the barriers are related to a sanitary or phytosanitary barrier. The TASC regulations have been amended to reflect the recent statutory change.
As a general matter, TASC program projects should be designed to address the following criteria:
• Projects should identify and address a sanitary, phytosanitary, or other technical barrier that prohibits or threatens the export of U.S. specialty crops;
• Projects should demonstrably benefit the represented industry rather than a specific company or brand;
• Projects must address barriers to exports of commercially-available U.S. specialty crops for which barrier removal would predominantly benefit U.S. exports; and
• Projects should include an explanation as to what specifically could not be accomplished without Federal funding assistance and why the participating organization(s) would be unlikely to carry out the project without such assistance.
Examples of expenses that CCC may agree to reimburse under the TASC program include, but are not limited to: initial pre-clearance programs, export protocol and work plan support, seminars and workshops, study tours, field surveys, development of pest lists, pest and disease research, reasonable logistical and administrative support, and travel and per diem expenses.
In general, and subject to the availability of funding, all qualified proposals received before the specified application deadline will compete for funding. The limited funds and the range of barriers affecting the exports of U.S. specialty crops worldwide preclude CCC from approving large budgets for individual projects. Proposals requesting more than $500,000 in any given year will not be considered. Additionally, private entities may submit multi-year proposals that may be considered in the context of a detailed strategic implementation plan. The maximum duration of an activity is 5 years. Funding in such cases may, at FAS' discretion, be provided one year at a time with commitments beyond the first year subject to interim evaluations and funding availability. In order to validate funding eligibility, proposals must specify previous years of TASC funding for each proposed activity/title/market/constraint combination. Government entities are not eligible for multi-year funding.
Applicants may submit multiple proposals, and applicants with previously approved TASC proposals may apply for additional funding. The number of approved projects that a TASC participant can have underway at any given time is five. Please see 7 CFR part 1487 for additional restrictions.
FAS will consider providing either grant funds as direct assistance to U.S. organizations or technical assistance on behalf of U.S. organizations, provided that the organization submits timely and qualified proposals. FAS will review all proposals against the evaluation criteria contained in the program regulations.
Funding for successful proposals will be provided through specific agreements. These agreements will incorporate the proposal as approved by FAS. FAS must approve in advance any subsequent changes to the project. FAS or another Federal agency may be involved in the implementation of approved projects.
Foreign organizations, whether government or private, may participate as third parties in activities carried out by U.S. organizations, but are not eligible for funding assistance from the program.
Although FAS highly recommends applying via the Internet-based UES application, as this format virtually eliminates paperwork and expedites the FAS processing and review cycle, applicants also have the option of submitting an electronic version to FAS at
In addition, in accordance with 2 CFR part 25, each entity that applies to the TASC program and does not qualify for an exemption under 2 CFR 25.110 must:
(i) Provide a valid DUNS number in each application or plan it submits to CCC;
(ii) Be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to submitting an application or plan; and
(iii) Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by CCC.
Similarly, in accordance with 2 CFR part 170, each entity that applies to the TASC program and does not qualify for an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b) must ensure it has the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the applicable reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170 should it receive TASC funding.
Incomplete applications and applications that do not otherwise conform to this announcement will not be accepted for review.
• Proposals received by, but not later than, 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, June 8, 2015, will be considered for funding with other proposals received by that date;
• Proposals not approved for funding during the review period will be reconsidered for funding after the review period only if the applicant specifically requests such reconsideration in writing, and only if funding remains available;
• Proposals received after 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, June 8, 2015, will be considered in the order received for funding only if funding remains available.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, a proposal may be submitted for expedited consideration under the TASC Quick Response process if, in addition to meeting all requirements of the TASC program, a proposal clearly identifies a time-sensitive activity. In these cases, a proposal may be submitted at any time for an expedited evaluation. Such a proposal must include a specific request for expedited evaluation.
FAS will track the time and date of receipt of all proposals.
Certain types of expenses are not eligible for reimbursement by the program, such as the costs of market research, advertising, or other promotional expenses, and will be set forth in the written program agreement between CCC and the participant. CCC will also not reimburse unreasonable expenditures or any expenditure made prior to approval of a proposal.
(2) The potential trade impact of the proposed project on market retention, market access, and market expansion, including the potential for expanding commercial sales in the targeted market (12.5%);
(3) The completeness and viability of the proposal. Among other things, this can include the cost of the project and the amount of other resources dedicated to the project, including cash and goods and services of the U.S. industry and foreign third parties (15%) and the effectiveness and potential of the performance measures (10%);
(4) The ability of the organization to provide an experienced staff with the requisite technical and trade experience to execute the proposal (15%);
(5) The extent to which the proposal is targeted to a market in which the United States is generally competitive (17.5%);
(6) The degree to which time is essential to addressing specific export barriers (5%); and
(7) The ability of the applicant to provide a broad base of producer representation (12.5%).
For additional information and assistance, contact the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) announces that it is inviting proposals for the 2016 Emerging Markets Program (EMP). The intended effect of this notice is to solicit applications from the private sector and from government agencies for fiscal year 2016 and to set out criteria for the award of funds under the program in October 2015. The EMP is administered by personnel of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS).
To be considered for funding, applications must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, June 8, 2015. Any applications received after this time will be considered only if funds are still available.
Entities wishing to apply for funding assistance should contact the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service
The EMP is authorized by section 1542(d)(1) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (The Act), as amended. The EMP regulations appear at 7 CFR part 1486.
All U.S. agricultural commodities, except tobacco, are eligible for consideration. Agricultural product(s) should be comprised of at least 50 percent U.S. origin content by weight, exclusive of added water, to be eligible for funding. Proposals that seek support for multiple commodities are also eligible. EMP funding may only be used to develop, maintain, or expand emerging markets for U.S. agricultural commodities and products through generic activities. EMP funding may not be used to support the export of another country's products to the United States, or to promote the development of a foreign economy as a primary objective.
(a) Assistance to teams consisting primarily of U.S. individuals expert in assessing the food and rural business systems of other countries. This type of EMP project must include all three of the following:
• Conduct an assessment of the food and rural business system needs of an emerging market;
• Make recommendations on measures necessary to enhance the effectiveness of these systems; and
• Identify opportunities and projects to enhance the effectiveness of the emerging market's food and rural business systems.
To be eligible, such proposals must clearly demonstrate that experts are primarily agricultural consultants, farmers, other persons from the private sector, and government officials, and that they have expertise in assessing the food and rural business systems of other countries.
(b) Assistance to enable individuals from emerging markets to travel to the United States so that these individuals can, for the purpose of enhancing the food and rural business systems in their countries, become familiar with U.S. technology and agribusiness and rural enterprise operations by consulting with food and rural business system experts in the United States.
(c) Assistance to enable U.S. agricultural producers and other individuals knowledgeable in agricultural and agribusiness matters to travel to emerging markets to assist in transferring their knowledge and expertise to entities in emerging markets. Such travel must be to emerging markets. Travel to developed markets is not eligible under the program even if the traveler's targeted market is an emerging market.
(d) Technical assistance to implement the recommendations, projects, and/or opportunities identified under 2(a) above. Technical assistance that does not implement the recommendations, projects, and/or opportunities identified
Proposals that do not fall into one or more of the four categories above, regardless of previous guidance provided regarding the EMP, are not eligible for consideration under the program.
EMP funds may not be used to support normal operating costs of individual organizations, nor as a source to recover pre-award costs or prior expenses from previous or ongoing projects. Proposals that counter national strategies or duplicate activities planned or already underway by U.S. non-profit agricultural commodity or trade associations (“cooperators”) will not be considered. Other ineligible expenditures include: Branded product promotions (
(a) Is taking steps toward developing a market-oriented economy through the food, agriculture, or rural business sectors of the economy of the country; and
(b) Has the potential to provide a viable and significant market for U.S. agricultural commodities or products of U.S. agricultural commodities.
Because EMP funds are limited and the range of potential emerging market countries is worldwide, consideration will be given only to proposals that target countries or regional groups with per capita income of less than $12,745 (the current ceiling on upper middle income economies as determined by the World Bank [World Development Indicators; July 2014,
Income limits and their calculation can change from year to year with the result that a given country may qualify under the legislative and administrative criteria one year, but not the next. Therefore, CCC has not established a fixed list of emerging market countries.
A few countries technically qualify as emerging markets but may require a separate determination before funding can be considered because of political sensitivities.
In general, and subject to the availability of funding, all qualified proposals received before the application deadline will compete for EMP funding.
The applicants' willingness to contribute resources, including cash, goods and services, will be a critical factor in determining which proposals are funded under the EMP. Each proposal will also be judged on the potential benefits to the industry represented by the applicant and the degree to which the proposal demonstrates industry support.
The limited funds and the range of eligible emerging markets worldwide generally preclude CCC from approving large budgets for individual projects. While there is no minimum or maximum amount set for EMP-funded projects, most projects are funded at a level of less than $500,000 and for a duration of approximately one year. Private entities may submit multi-year proposals requesting higher levels of funding that may be considered in the context of a detailed strategic implementation plan. Funding in such cases is generally limited to three years and provided one year at a time with commitments beyond the first year subject to interim evaluations and funding availability. Government entities are not eligible for multi-year funding.
Funding for successful proposals will be provided through specific agreements. The CCC, through FAS, will be kept informed of the implementation of approved projects through the requirement to provide interim progress reports and final performance reports. Changes in the original project timelines and adjustments within project budgets must be approved in advance by FAS.
EMP funds awarded to government agencies must be expended or otherwise obligated by close of business, September 30, 2016.
U.S. export market development cooperators and SRTGs may seek funding to address priority, market specific issues and to undertake activities not suitable for funding under other CCC market development programs,
Cost-sharing is not required for proposals from government agencies, but is mandatory for all other eligible entities, even when they may be party to a joint proposal with a government agency. Contributions from USDA or other government agencies or programs may not be counted toward the stated cost-share requirement of other applicants. Similarly, contributions from foreign (non-U.S.) organizations may not be counted toward the cost-share requirement, but may be counted in the total cost of the project.
Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit their applications to FAS through the UES application Internet Web site. The Internet-based format reduces paperwork and expedites FAS' processing and review cycle. Applicants planning to use the on-line UES system must contact the Program Operations Division to obtain site access information. The Internet-based application is located at the following URL address:
Although FAS highly recommends applying via the Internet-based application, applicants also have the option of submitting an electronic version to FAS at
In addition, in accordance with 2 CFR part 25, each entity that applies to the EMP and does not qualify for an exemption under 2 CFR § 25.110 must:
(i) Provide a valid DUNS number in each application or plan it submits to CCC;
(ii) Be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to submitting an application or plan; and
(iii) Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by CCC.
Similarly, in accordance with 2 CFR part 170, each entity that applies to the EMP and does not qualify for an exception under 2 CFR § 170.110(b) must ensure it has the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the applicable reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170 should it receive EMP funding.
Applications should be no longer than ten (10) pages and include the following information:
(a) Date of proposal;
(b) Name of organization submitting proposal;
(c) Organization address, telephone and fax numbers;
(d) Tax ID number;
(e) DUNS number;
(f) Primary contact person;
(g) Full title of proposal;
(h) Target market(s);
(i) Specific description of activity/activities to be undertaken;
(j) Clear demonstration that successful implementation will benefit an emerging market's food and rural business system and/or reduce potential trade barriers, and will benefit a particular industry as a whole, not just the applicant(s);
(k) Current conditions in the target market(s) affecting the intended commodity or product;
(l) Description of problem(s) (
(m) Project objectives;
(n) Performance measures: Benchmarks for quantifying progress in meeting the objectives;
(o) Rationale: Explanation of the underlying reasons for the project proposal and its approach, the anticipated benefits, and any additional pertinent analysis;
(p) Explanation as to what specifically could not be accomplished without Federal funding assistance and why the participating organization(s) would be unlikely to carry out the project without such assistance;
(q) Timeline(s) for implementation of activity, including start and end dates;
(r) Information on whether similar activities are or have previously been funded with USDA resources in the target country or countries (
(s) Detailed line item activity budget:
• Cost items should be allocated separately to each participating organization; and
• Expense items constituting a proposed activity's overall budget (
(1) Which items are to be covered by EMP funding;
(2) Which by the participating U.S. organization(s); and
(3) Which by foreign third parties (if applicable).
Cost items for individual consultant fees should show calculation of daily rate and number of days. Cost items for travel expenses should show number of trips, destinations, cost, and objective for each trip; and
(t) Qualifications of applicant(s) should be included as an attachment.
• Proposals received by, but not later than, 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, June 8, 2015, will be considered for funding with other proposals received by that date;
• Proposals not approved for funding during the review period will be reconsidered for funding after the review period only if the applicant specifically requests such reconsideration in writing, and only if funding remains available;
• Proposals received after 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, June 8, 2015, will be considered in the order received for funding only if funding remains available.
5.
• Appropriateness of the activity, including the ability of the applicant to provide an experienced U.S.-based staff with knowledge and expertise to ensure adequate development, supervision, and execution of the proposed project; the entity's willingness to contribute resources, including cash and goods and services of the U.S. industry, with greater weight given to cash contributions (for private sector proposals only); and the conditions or constraints affecting the level of U.S. exports and market share for the agricultural commodity/product (30%);
• Market Impact, including the degree to which the proposed project is likely to contribute to the development, maintenance, or expansion of U.S. agricultural exports to emerging markets; and demonstration of how a proposed project will benefit a particular industry as a whole; and the quality of the project's proposed performance measures (50%); and the
• Completeness and viability of the proposal, along with past program results and evaluations, if applicable (20%).
Please see 7 CFR part 1486 for additional evaluation criteria.
For additional information and assistance, contact the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) announces it is inviting proposals for the 2016 Quality Samples Program (QSP). The intended effect of this notice is to solicit applications from eligible applicants for fiscal year 2016 and to set out the criteria for the award of funds under the program in October 2015. QSP is administered by personnel of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS).
To be considered for funding, applications must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, June 8, 2015. Any applications received after this time will be considered only if funds are still available.
Entities wishing to apply for funding assistance should contact the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service
QSP participants will be responsible for procuring (or arranging for the procurement of) commodity samples, exporting the samples, and providing the on-site technical assistance necessary to facilitate successful use of the samples by importers. Participants that are funded under this announcement may seek reimbursement from QSP for the sample purchase price, the cost of transporting the samples domestically to the port of export, and then to the foreign port or point of entry. Transportation costs from the foreign port or point of entry to the final destination will not be eligible for reimbursement. CCC will not reimburse the costs incidental to purchasing and transporting samples, for example, inspection or documentation fees. Although providing technical assistance is required for all projects, QSP will not reimburse the costs of providing technical assistance. A QSP participant will be reimbursed after CCC reviews its reimbursement claim and determines that the claim is complete.
As a general matter, QSP projects should conform to the following guidelines:
• Projects should benefit the represented U.S. industry and not a specific company or brand;
• Projects should develop a new market for a U.S. product, promote a new U.S. product, or promote a new use for a U.S. product, rather than promote
• Sample commodities provided under a QSP project must be in sufficient supply and available on a commercial basis;
• The QSP project must either subject the commodity sample to further processing or substantial transformation in the importing country, or the sample must be used in technical seminars in the importing country designed to demonstrate to an appropriate target audience the proper preparation or use of the sample in the creation of an end product;
• Samples provided in a QSP project shall not be directly used as part of a retail promotion or supplied directly to consumers. However, the end product, that is, the product resulting from further processing, substantial transformation, or a technical seminar, may be provided to end-use consumers to demonstrate to importers consumer preference for that end product; and
• Samples shall be in quantities less than a typical commercial sale and limited to the amount sufficient to achieve the project goal (
• Projects should be completed within one year of CCC approval.
QSP projects shall target foreign importers and audiences who:
• Have not previously purchased the U.S. commodity that will be transported under QSP;
• Are unfamiliar with the variety, quality attribute, or end-use characteristic of the U.S. commodity;
• Have been unsuccessful in previous attempts to import, process, and market the U.S. commodity (
• Are interested in testing or demonstrating the benefits of the U.S. commodity; or
• Need technical assistance in processing or using the U.S. commodity.
Under this announcement, the number of projects per participant will not be limited. However, individual projects will be limited to $75,000 of QSP reimbursement. Projects comprised of technical preparation seminars, that is, projects that do not include further processing or substantial transformation, will be limited to $15,000 of QSP reimbursement as these projects require smaller samples. Financial assistance will be made available on a reimbursement basis only; cash advances will not be made available to any QSP participant.
All proposals will be reviewed against the evaluation criteria contained herein and funds will be awarded on a competitive basis. Funding for successful proposals will be provided through specific agreements between the applicant and CCC subject to the availability of funding. These agreements will incorporate the proposal as approved by FAS. FAS must approve in advance any subsequent changes to the project.
Applicants planning to use the Internet-based system must contact the FAS/Program Operations Division to obtain Web site access information. The Internet-based application may be found at the following URL address:
Although FAS highly recommends applying via the Internet-based application, as this format virtually eliminates paperwork and expedites the FAS processing and review cycle, applicants also have the option of submitting an electronic version of their application to FAS at
In addition, in accordance with 2 CFR part 25, each entity that applies to QSP and does not qualify for an exemption under 2 CFR 25.110 must:
(i) Provide a valid DUNS number in each application or plan it submits to CCC;
(ii) Be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to submitting an application or plan; and
(iii) Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by CCC.
Similarly, in accordance with 2 CFR part 170, each entity that applies to the QSP and does not qualify for an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b) must ensure it has the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the applicable reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170 should it receive QSP funding.
Incomplete applications and applications that do not otherwise conform to this announcement will not be accepted for review.
Proposals should contain, at a minimum, the following:
(a) Organizational information, including:
• Organization's name, address, Chief Executive Officer (or designee), Federal Tax Identification Number (TIN), and DUNS number;
• Type of organization;
• Name, telephone number, fax number, and email address of the primary contact person;
• A description of the organization and its membership;
• A description of the organization's prior export promotion experience; and
• A description of the organization's experience in implementing an appropriate trade/technical assistance component;
(b) Market information, including:
• An assessment of the market;
• A long-term strategy in the market; and
• U.S. export value/volume and market share (historic and goals) for 2009-2015;
(c) Project information, including:
• A brief project title;
• Amount of funding requested;
• A brief description of the specific market development trade constraint or opportunity to be addressed by the project, performance measures for the years 2016-2018, which will be used to measure the effectiveness of the project, a benchmark performance measure for 2014, the viability of long-term sales to this market, the goals of the project, and the expected benefits to the represented industry;
• A description of the activities planned to address the constraint or opportunity, including how the sample will be used in the end-use performance trial, the attributes of the sample to be demonstrated and its end-use benefit, and details of the trade/technical servicing component (including who will provide and who will fund this component);
• A sample description (
• An itemized list of all estimated costs associated with the project for which reimbursement will be sought;
• Beginning and end dates for the proposed project;
• The importer's role in the project regarding handling and processing the commodity sample; and
• Explanation as to what specifically could not be accomplished without Federal funding assistance and why the participating organization(s) would be unlikely to carry out the project without such assistance;
(d) Information indicating all funding sources and amounts to be contributed by each entity that will supplement implementation of the proposed project. This may include the organization that submitted the proposal, private industry entities, host governments, foreign third parties, CCC, FAS, or other Federal agencies. Contributed resources may include cash, goods or services.
• Proposals received by, but not later than, 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, June 8, 2015, will be considered for funding with other proposals received by that date;
• Proposals not approved for funding during this review period will be reconsidered for funding after the review period only if the applicant specifically requests such reconsideration in writing, and only if funding remains available;
• Proposals received after 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, June 8, 2015, will be considered in the order received for funding only if funding remains available.
FAS will use the following criteria in evaluating proposals:
• The ability of the organization to provide an experienced staff with the requisite technical and trade experience to execute the proposal;
• The extent to which the proposal is targeted to a market in which the United States is generally competitive;
• The potential for expanding commercial sales in the proposed market;
• The nature of the specific market constraint or opportunity involved and how well it is addressed by the proposal;
• The extent to which the importer's contribution in terms of handling and processing enhances the potential outcome of the project;
• The amount of reimbursement requested and the organization's willingness to contribute resources, including cash, goods and services of the U.S. industry, and foreign third parties; and
• How well the proposed technical assistance component assures that performance trials will effectively demonstrate the intended end-use benefit.
Proposals will be evaluated by the Commodity Branch offices in the FAS' Cooperator Programs Division. The Commodity Branches will review each proposal against the factors described above. The purpose of this review is to identify meritorious proposals, recommend an appropriate funding level for each proposal based upon these factors, and submit proposals and funding recommendations to the Deputy Administrator, Office of Trade Programs.
1.
2.
QSP projects are subject to review and verification by FAS' Compliance, Security and Emergency Planning Division. Upon request, a QSP participant shall provide to CCC the
3.
For additional information and assistance, contact the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) announces that it is inviting proposals for the 2016 Foreign Market Development Cooperator (Cooperator) program. The intended effect of this notice is to solicit applications from eligible applicants for fiscal year 2016 and to set out criteria for the award of funds under the program in October 2015. The Cooperator program is administered by personnel of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS).
All applications must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, June 8, 2015. Applications received after this date will not be considered.
Entities wishing to apply for funding assistance should contact the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service
FAS allocates funds in a manner that effectively supports the strategic decision-making initiatives of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993. In deciding whether a proposed project will contribute to the effective creation, expansion, or maintenance of foreign markets, FAS considers whether the applicant provides a clear, long-term agricultural trade strategy and a program effectiveness time line against which results can be measured at specific intervals using quantifiable product or country goals. FAS also considers the extent to which a proposed project targets markets with the greatest growth potential. These factors are part of the FAS resource allocation strategy to fund applicants who can demonstrate performance and address the objectives of the GPRA.
Under the Cooperator program, and subject to the availability of funding, FAS enters into agreements with eligible nonprofit U.S. trade organizations to share the cost of certain overseas marketing and promotion activities. Funding priority is given to organizations that have the broadest possible producer representation of the commodity being promoted and that are nationwide in membership and scope. Cooperators may receive assistance only for generic activities that do not involve promotions targeted directly to consumers. The program generally operates on a reimbursement basis.
The degree of commitment of an applicant to the promotional strategies contained in its application, as represented by the agreed cost-share contributions specified therein, is considered by FAS when determining which applications will be approved for funding. Cost-share may be actual cash invested or in-kind contributions, such as professional staff time spent on design and execution of activities. The Cooperator program regulations, including sections 1484.50 and 1484.51, provide detailed discussion of eligible and ineligible cost-share contributions.
Applicants planning to use the Internet-based system must contact the FAS/Program Operations Division to obtain site access information. The Internet-based application may be found at the following URL address:
FAS highly recommends applying via the Internet-based application as this format virtually eliminates paperwork and expedites the FAS processing and review cycle. However, applicants also have the option of submitting an electronic version of their application to FAS at
In addition, in accordance with 2 CFR part 25, each entity that applies to the Cooperator program and does not qualify for an exemption under 2 CFR 25.110 must:
(i) Provide a valid DUNS number in each application or plan it submits to CCC;
(ii) Be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to submitting an application or plan; and
(iii) Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by CCC.
Similarly, in accordance with 2 CFR part 170, each entity that applies to the Cooperator program and does not qualify for an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b) must ensure it has the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the applicable reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170 should it receive funding under the Cooperator program. Incomplete applications and applications that do not otherwise conform to this announcement or the Cooperator program regulations will not be accepted for review.
FAS administers various other agricultural export assistance programs, including the Market Access Program (MAP), the Emerging Markets Program, the Quality Samples Program, and the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops program. Any organization that is not interested in applying for the Cooperator program but would like to request assistance through one of the other programs mentioned should contact the Program Operations Division.
Applications received by the closing date will be reviewed by FAS to determine the eligibility of the applicants and the completeness of the applications. These requirements appear in sections 1484.14 and 1484.20 of the Cooperator program regulations as well as in this Notice. Applications that meet the requirements then will be further evaluated by the appropriate Commodity Branch office of the FAS/Cooperator Programs Division. The Commodity Branch will review each application against the criteria listed in section 1484.21 of the Cooperator program regulations. The purpose of this review is to identify meritorious proposals. The Commodity Branch then recommends an appropriate funding level for each approved application for consideration by the Office of the Deputy Administrator, Office of Trade Programs.
Meritorious applications are passed on to the Office of the Deputy Administrator, Office of Trade Programs, for the purpose of allocating available funds among those applicants. Applicants will compete for funds on the basis of the following allocation criteria as appropriate (the number in parentheses represents a percentage weight factor):
• The applicant's 6-year average share (2011-2016) of all contributions under the Cooperator program (contributions may include cash and goods and services provided by U.S. entities in support of foreign market development activities) compared to;
• The applicant's 6-year average share (2011-2016) of the funding level for all Cooperator program participants.
• The 6-year average share (2010-2015) of the value of exports promoted by the applicant compared to;
• The applicant's 6-year average share (2010-2015) of the funding level for all Cooperator participants plus, for those groups participating in the MAP program, a 6-year average share (2010-2015) of all MAP budgets.
• The 6-year average share (2010-2015) of the total value of world trade of the commodities promoted by the applicant compared to;
• The applicant's 6-year average share (2010-2015) of all Cooperator program expenditures plus, for those groups participating in the MAP program, a 6-year average share (2010-2015) of all MAP expenditures.
• The projected total dollar value of world trade of the commodities being promoted by the applicant for the year 2021 compared to;
• The applicant's requested funding level.
• The actual dollar value share of world trade of the commodities being promoted by the applicant for the year 2014 compared to;
• The applicant's past projected share of world trade of the commodities being promoted by the applicant for the year 2014, as specified in the 2011 Cooperator program application.
The Commodity Branches' recommended funding levels for each applicant are converted to percentages of the total Cooperator program funds available and then multiplied by each weight factor to determine the amount of funds allocated to each applicant.
For additional information and assistance, contact the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) announces that it is inviting proposals for the 2016 Market Access Program (MAP). The intended effect of this notice is to solicit applications from eligible applicants for fiscal year 2016 and to set out criteria for the award of funds under the program in October 2015. The MAP is administered by personnel of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS).
All applications must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, June 8, 2015. Applications received after this date will not be considered.
Entities wishing to apply for funding assistance should contact the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service
FAS allocates funds in a manner that effectively supports the strategic decision-making initiatives of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993. In deciding whether a proposed project will contribute to the effective creation, expansion, or maintenance of foreign markets, FAS considers whether the applicant provides a clear, long-term agricultural trade strategy and a program effectiveness time line against which results can be measured at specific intervals using quantifiable product or country goals. FAS also considers the extent to which a proposed project targets markets with the greatest growth potential. These factors are part of the FAS resource allocation strategy to fund applicants who can demonstrate performance and address the objectives of the GPRA.
Under the MAP, and subject to the availability of funding, the CCC enters into agreements with eligible Participants to share the cost of certain overseas marketing and promotion activities. MAP Participants may receive assistance for generic or brand promotion activities. For generic activities, funding priority is given to organizations that have the broadest possible producer representation of the commodity being promoted and that are nationwide in membership and scope. Only non-profit U.S. agricultural trade organizations, nonprofit state regional trade groups (SRTGs), U.S. agricultural cooperatives, and State government agencies can participate directly in the brand program. The MAP generally operates on a reimbursement basis.
The degree of commitment of an applicant to the promotional strategies contained in its application, as represented by the agreed cost-share contributions specified therein, is considered by FAS when determining which applications will be approved for funding. Cost-share may be actual cash invested or in-kind contributions, such as professional staff time spent on design and execution of activities. The MAP regulations, in section 1485.16, provide detailed discussion of eligible and ineligible cost-share contributions.
FAS highly recommends applying via the Internet-based application, as this format virtually eliminates paperwork and expedites the FAS processing and review cycle. However, applicants also have the option of submitting an electronic version of their application to FAS at
In addition, in accordance with 2 CFR part 25, each entity that applies to MAP and does not qualify for an exemption under 2 CFR 25.110 must:
(i) Provide a valid DUNS number in each application or plan it submits to CCC;
(ii) Be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to submitting an application or plan; and
(iii) Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by CCC.
Similarly, in accordance with 2 CFR part 170, each entity that applies to MAP and does not qualify for an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b) must ensure it has the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the applicable reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170 should it receive MAP funding.
Incomplete applications and applications that do not otherwise conform to this announcement and the MAP regulations will not be accepted for review.
FAS administers various other agricultural export assistance programs including the Foreign Market Development Cooperator (Cooperator) program, the Emerging Markets Program, the Quality Samples Program, and the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops program. Any organization that is not interested in applying for the MAP, but would like to request assistance through one of the other programs mentioned should contact the Program Operations Division.
Applications received by the closing date will be reviewed by FAS to determine the eligibility of the applicants and the completeness of the applications. These requirements appear in sections 1485.12 and 1485.13 of the MAP regulations. Applications that meet the requirements then will be further evaluated by the appropriate Commodity Branch office of the FAS/Cooperator Programs Division. The Commodity Branch will review each application against the criteria listed in section 1485.14(b) and (c) of the MAP regulations as well as in this Notice. The purpose of this review is to identify meritorious proposals and to recommend an appropriate funding level for each application based upon these criteria.
Meritorious applications then will be passed on to the Office of the Deputy Administrator, Office of Trade Programs, for the purpose of allocating available funds among the applicants. Applicants will compete for funds on the basis of the following allocation criteria as applicable (the number in parentheses represents a percentage weight factor):
• The applicant's 4-year average share (2013-2016) of all contributions under the MAP (cash and goods and services provided by U.S. entities in support of overseas marketing and promotion activities) compared to;
• The applicant's 4-year average share (2013-2016) of the funding level for all MAP Participants.
• The 3-year average share (2012-2014) of the value of exports promoted by the applicant compared to;
• The applicant's 2-year average share (2014-2015) of the funding level for all MAP Participants plus, for those groups participating in the Cooperator program, the 2-year average share (2014-2015) of all Cooperator program budgets.
• The total dollar value of projected exports promoted by the applicant for 2016 compared to;
• The applicant's requested funding level;
• Actual exports for 2014 as reported in the 2016 MAP application compared to;
• Past projections of exports for 2014 as specified in the 2014 MAP application.
The Commodity Branches' recommended funding levels for each applicant are converted to percentages of the total MAP funds available and then multiplied by each weight factor as described above to determine the amount of funds allocated to each applicant.
For additional information and assistance, contact the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service (FS) is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the extension with no revision of a currently approved information collection; Community Forest and Open Space Program.
The Agency is in the process of a proposed rule revision that will include a new information collection request; when the revised rule is final, the Agency will merge the new information collection with this information collection.
Comments must be received in writing on or before June 15, 2015 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Maya Solomon, USDA Forest Service, Cooperative Forestry Staff, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mailstop 1123, Washington, DC 20250. Comments may also be submitted electronically via email to
The public may inspect comments received at the USDA Forest Service, Yates Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, Washington, DC during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.
Maya Solomon, Forest Legacy Program Specialist, by phone at 202-206-1376. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
Local governmental entities, Tribal Governments, and qualified nonprofit organizations are the only entities eligible for the program, and therefore are the only organizations from which information will be collected.
The information collection currently required for a request for proposals and grant application is approved and has been assigned the OMB Control No. 0596-0227.
Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the 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 the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture is initiating a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) to propose reinstatement of the North Fork Coal Mining Area exception of the Colorado Roadless Rule. The exception would allow for temporary road construction for coal exploration and/or coal-related surface activities in a 19,100-acre area defined as the North Fork Coal Mining Area. The Forest Service will use the SEIS to address specific deficiencies identified by the District Court of Colorado in
Comments must be received in writing by May 22, 2015.
Comments may be submitted electronically at
All comments, including names and addresses, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying.
Ken Tu at 303-275-5156. Individuals using telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Services at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
On July 3, 2012 (77 FR 39576), the U.S. Department of Agriculture promulgated the Colorado Roadless Rule, a state-specific regulation for management of Colorado Roadless Areas. This Rule addressed State-specific concerns while conserving roadless area characteristics. One State-specific concern was to avoid foreclosing exploration and development of coal resources on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison (GMUG) National Forests. The Colorado Roadless Rule addressed this by defining a 19,100-acre area as the North Fork Coal Mining Area, and developing an exception that allows temporary road construction for coal-related activities within that defined area.
In July 2013, High Country Conservation Advocates, WildEarth Guardians, and Sierra Club challenged the Forest Service's decision to consent to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) modifying two existing coal leases, the BLM's companion decision to modify the leases, BLM's authorization of an exploration plan in the lease modification areas, and the North Fork Coal Mining Area exception of the Colorado Roadless Rule. In June 2014, the District Court of Colorado found the environmental documents supporting the four decisions to be in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) due to analysis deficiencies. In September 2014, the District Court of Colorado vacated the lease modifications, the exploration plan, and the North Fork Coal Mining Area exception of the Colorado Roadless Rule (36 CFR 294.43(c)(1)(ix)).
This supplemental NEPA process will only address the Colorado Roadless Rule. The lease modifications and exploration plan authorization will be addressed in future environmental analyses, if needed.
The purpose and need for this supplemental EIS is to provide management direction for conserving roadless characteristics within the area while addressing the State interest in not foreclosing exploration and development of the coal resources in the North Fork Coal Mining Area.
The proposed action for the Colorado Roadless Rule supplemental is to reinstate the North Fork Coal Mining Area exception as written in 36 CFR 294.43(c)(1)(ix). In addition, the Forest Service is proposing to administratively correct the North Fork Coal Mining Area boundary to remedy clerical errors.
The other alternative being considered is the no-action alternative, which is the continuation of current management following the District Court ruling to vacate the North Fork Coal Mining Area exception. The Colorado Roadless Rule contains a severability clause (36 CFR 294.48(f)), which allows the rest of the Rule to remain in effect. Therefore, the District Court of Colorado's ruling only changed management of Colorado Roadless Areas in the North Fork Coal Mining Area. Currently, the North Fork Coal Mining Area is being managed the same as other non-upper tier Colorado Roadless Areas. Valid existing coal leases would operate according the terms of their leases.
The Colorado Department of Natural Resources and the BLM will participate as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the SEIS.
The Responsible Official for the rulemaking and SEIS is the Secretary of Agriculture or his designee.
The Responsible Official will determine whether to reinstate the North Fork Coal Mining Area exception, or continue to manage the area without the exception. In addition, the Forest Service will determine if corrections to the North Fork Coal Mining Area boundary should be made to adjust for clerical errors.
The Forest Service is seeking public comments for 45 days from the publication date of this notice. Comments should be limited to issues related to the proposed action, which is limited only to reinstating the North Fork Coal Mining Area exception of the Colorado Roadless Rule. The Forest Service is not seeking comments on the other portions of the Colorado Roadless Rule, roadless area boundary modifications, or other roadless areas in Colorado.
Due to the extensive public participation process that occurred with the development of the Colorado Roadless Rule, no public meetings are planned for this 45 day scoping effort. However, public meetings may be held in Denver and Paonia, Colorado after the release of the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) and proposed rule.
The SDEIS and proposed rule is estimated to be released in early fall 2015. The Supplemental Final EIS is estimated spring 2016.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of Settlement.
In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (ASAOC), between the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (Forest Service) and Williams Express LLC (Williams), under Sections 104, 107 and 122 of CERCLA, regarding the Nacimiento Mine Site located on the Santa Fe National Forest near Cuba, New Mexico. The property that is the subject of this proposed ASAOC is areas where hazardous substances and/or pollutants or contaminants are located on the surface features of the federally owned portion of the Site designated as Operable Unit 1 (OU1).
This ASAOC requires Williams perform an Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (EE/CA) report to develop, evaluate, and select cleanup alternatives involving mining waste piles and other surface features located on the federally owned portion of OU1 at the Site. The performance of this work must be approved and monitored by the Forest Service. Also under the ASAOC, Williams will reimburse up to $7,500 of the Forest Service's oversight costs related to the EE/CA.
For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the United States will receive written comments relating to the ASAOC. The United States will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the ASAOC if comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The United States' response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the USDA, Office of General Counsel, Mountain Region, 740 Simms Street, Golden, Colorado 80401, and the Forest Service's Southwestern Regional Office, 333 Broadway SE., Albuquerque, NM 87102.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 7, 2015.
The proposed settlement and additional background information relating to the settlement are available for public inspection at the offices located at the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Regional Office, 333 Broadway SE., Albuquerque, NM 87102, or from Kirk M. Minckler with USDA's Office of the General Counsel, (303) 275-5549. Comments should reference the Nacimiento Mine, Santa Fe National Forest, Sandoval County, New Mexico, and should be addressed to Kirk M. Minckler, USDA Office of the General Counsel, P.O. Box 25005, Denver, CO 80225-005.
For technical information, contact Steven J. McDonald, USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region, 333 Broadway SE., Albuquerque, NM 87102, phone (505) 842-3838. For legal information, contact Kirk M. Minckler, USDA Office of the General Counsel, P.O. Box 25005, Denver, CO 80225-0005; phone (303) 275-5549, Fax: (303) 275-5557; email:
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before June 8, 2015.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Direct requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions to Laura Waggoner, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC 20233 (or via the Internet at
The mission of the Geography Division (GEO) within the Census Bureau is to plan, coordinate, and administer all geographic and cartographic activities needed to facilitate Census Bureau statistical programs throughout the United States and its territories. GEO manages programs to continuously update geographic data including addresses, spatial features, boundaries, and geographic entities in the Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (MAF/TIGER) System. GEO also conducts research into geographic concepts, methods, and standards needed to facilitate Census Bureau data collection and dissemination programs.
Geographic Partnership Programs (GPPs) encourages participants, following Census Bureau guidelines, to review, update, and suggest modifications to geographic data to maintain MAF/TIGER and to ensure the accurate reporting of data from censuses and surveys. Because state, local, and tribal governments have geographic data and current knowledge about where growth and change are occurring in their jurisdictions, their input into the overall development of a continually maintained address list for censuses and surveys makes a vital contribution. The Census Bureau recognizes that state, local, and tribal governments have authoritative geographic data for their jurisdiction. The benefits to local governments in sharing that information as part of the Census Bureau's GPPs are realized with quality data for more accurate results of censuses and surveys.
This notice is for a generic clearance that will cover a number of activities required for updating MAF/TIGER with participant-provided address and other geographic information, or obtain address and spatial data for research and evaluation purposes. The information collected in these programs in cooperation with state, local, and tribal governments and other partners is essential to the mission of the Census Bureau and directly contributes to the successful outcome of censuses and surveys conducted by the Census Bureau. The generic clearance allows the Census Bureau to focus its resources on actual operational planning, development of procedures, and implementation of programs to update and improve the geographic data maintained in MAF/TIGER.
The Census Bureau will develop guidelines and procedures for state, local, and tribal government submissions of address data and geographic boundaries, and will outline the mutual roles and responsibilities of each party within each GPP. The GPP listed below, is not exhaustive of all activities that may be performed under this generic clearance. The Census Bureau will follow the approved procedure when submitting any additional activities not specifically listed here.
The GSS-I is an integrated program designed to improve geographic data and enhance the quality assessment and measurement for MAF/TIGER. The GSS-I builds on the accomplishments of the last decade's MAF/TIGER Enhancement Program (MTEP), which redesigned MAF/TGER, improved the positional accuracy of TIGER spatial features, and emphasized quality measurement. The Census Bureau plans
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
First Responder Network Authority, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice and request for comments; extension of comment period.
The First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) published a notice and request for comments in the
Comments must be submitted on or before April 28, 2015.
Written comments may be submitted electronically through
Eli Veenendaal, First Responder Network Authority, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, M/S 243, Reston, VA 20192; 703-648-4167; or
On March 13, 2015, FirstNet published a notice and request for comments in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On December 1, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on lightweight thermal paper (LWTP) from Germany.
David Goldberger, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone (202) 482-4136.
Since the publication of the
The merchandise covered by the order is LWTP.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is dated concurrently with, and adopted by, this notice. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
As a result of this review, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period November 1, 2012, through October 31, 2013.
We intend to disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of these final results of review. Because we have calculated a zero margin for Koehler in the final results of this review, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.
On January 22, 2015, the U.S. International Trade Commission determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
The final results of this administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on lightweight thermal paper (LWTP) from Germany for the period of November 1, 2013, through November 23, 2013, based on the withdrawal of all requests for review.
David Goldberger, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4136.
On November 3, 2014, the Department published in the
On December 1, 2014, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b), the Department received a timely request from Appvion Inc. (the petitioner), a domestic interested party, to conduct an administrative review of the POR sales of Papierfabrik August Koehler SE (Koehler). Also on this date, Koehler timely requested a review of its POR sales.
On December 23, 2014, the Department published in the
On February 20, 2015, the petitioner withdrew its request for review of Koehler.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Koehler and the petitioner withdrew their requests for review before the 90-day deadline (
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
This notice serves as the only reminder to importers of their responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (“AD”) order on certain oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
David Cordell or Angelica Townshend, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0408 or (202) 482-3019, respectively.
On May 21, 2010, the Department published the AD order on OCTG from the PRC.
On December 3, 2014, Maverick Tube Corporation (“Maverick”) timely notified the Department of its intent to participate.
On December 15, 2014, United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”) likewise timely notified the Department of its intent to participate.
This order covers OCTG. The Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice, provides a full description of the scope of the order.
The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
In the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we have addressed all issues that parties raised in this review. The issues include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail if the Department revoked the order.
Pursuant to section 752(c)(3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the AD order on OCTG from the PRC would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at weighted-average margins up to 99.14 percent.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Notice of public meeting cancellation.
The Advisory Committee on Commercial Remote Sensing (ACCRES) meeting on April 28, 2015 is cancelled.
Date and Time: The cancelled meeting will be rescheduled in May or June of 2015.
The meeting location will be announced at the time the new meeting announcement is placed in the
As required by section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1982), notice is hereby given of the meeting of ACCRES. ACCRES was established by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) on May 21, 2002, to advise the Secretary through the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on long- and short-range strategies for the licensing of commercial remote sensing satellite systems.
Tahara Dawkins, NOAA/NESDIS/CRSRA, 1335 East West Highway, Room 8260, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910; telephone (301) 713-3385, fax (301) 713-1249, email
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice sets forth the announcement of a public meeting of the Community Bank Advisory Council (CBAC or Council) of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau). The notice also describes the functions of the Council. Notice of the meeting is permitted by section 6 of the CBAC Charter and is intended to notify the public of this meeting. Specifically, Section X of the CBAC Charter states: (1) Each meeting of the Council shall be open to public observation, to the extent that a facility is available to accommodate the public, unless the Bureau, in accordance with paragraph (4) of this section, determines that the meeting shall be closed. The Bureau also will make reasonable efforts to make the meetings available to the public through live recording. (2) Notice of the time, place and purpose of each meeting, as well as a summary of the proposed agenda, shall be published in the
The meeting date is Wednesday, April 22, 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
The meeting location is Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.
Jennifer Draper, Consumer Advisory Board & Councils, External Affairs, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552; telephone: 202-435-7176;
Section 1014(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (
(a) The purpose of the Council is outlined in Section 1014(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act (
The Community Bank Advisory Council will discuss credit scores and credit reporting.
Persons who need a reasonable accommodation to participate should contact
Individuals who wish to attend the Community Bank Advisory Council meeting must RSVP to
The Council's agenda will be made available to the public on Monday, April 6, 2015, via
A recording and transcript of this meeting will be available after the
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 7, 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 Courtney Clemons, 202-377-3673.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice.
Applications Available: April 7, 2015.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 8, 2015.
This priority is:
In making new awards under this program, we give priority to applications for the continuation of programs that have been funded under the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Projects for American Indians with Disabilities program.
29 U.S.C. 741.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2016 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
In addition, the Department published final regulations in the
2.
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.250K.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
Each application must describe how the special application requirements stated at 34 CFR 371.21 will be met, including evidence that the applicant has or will obtain a formal cooperative agreement with the appropriate State VR agency or agencies that include strategies for collaboration and coordination of service provision.
3.
Applications Available: April 7, 2015.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 8, 2015.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you
Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
Applications for grants under the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Projects for American Indians with Disabilities program, CFDA number 84.250K, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the Vocational Rehabilitation Service Projects for American Indians with Disabilities program at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: August Martin, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5049, Washington, DC 20202-2800. FAX: (202) 245-7592.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
For purposes of this section, the term “employment outcome” means, with respect to an individual—(A) entering or retaining full-time or, if appropriate, part-time competitive employment in the integrated labor market; (B) satisfying the vocational outcome of supported employment; or (C) satisfying any other vocational outcome the Secretary of Education may determine to be appropriate (including satisfying the vocational outcome of customized employment, self-employment, telecommuting, or business ownership). (Section 7(11) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 705(11)).
5.
August Martin, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 5049, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-7410 or by email:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Department of Energy.
Notice of the Title X claims during fiscal year (FY) 2015.
This Notice announces the Department of Energy's (DOE) acceptance of claims in FY 2015 from eligible active uranium and thorium processing site licensees for
The closing date for the submission of FY 2015 Title X claims is July 20, 2015. The claims will be processed for payment together with any eligible unpaid approved claim balances from prior years, based on the availability of funds from congressional appropriations. If the total approved claim amounts exceed the available funding, the approved claim amounts will be reimbursed on a prorated basis. All reimbursements are subject to the availability of funds from congressional appropriations.
Claims should be forwarded by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, to U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Management, Attn: Russel Edge, Title X Program Manager for Review of Reimbursement of Claims, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Management, 11025 Dover Street, Suite 1000, Westminster, CO 80021. Two copies of the claim should be included with each submission.
Theresa Kliczewski, Title X Program Coordinator, at (202) 586-3301, of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Office of Disposition Planning & Policy.
DOE published a final rule under 10 CFR part 765 in the
Section 1001-1004 of Public Law 102-486, 106 Stat. 2776 (42 U.S.C. 2296a
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/15.
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 date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following PURPA 210(m)(3) filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following 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:
On March 4, 2015, Lock 11 Hydro Partners filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Lock 11 Hydroelectric Station Project (Lock 11 Project or project) to be located at the Kentucky River Authority's Lock and Dam #11, on the Kentucky River, near the town of College Hill, in Estill and Madison Counties, Kentucky. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) An existing 208-foot-long, 35-foot-high concrete dam with a 52-foot-wide abandoned lock chamber;
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on March 30, 2015, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC (Texas Gas) filed an amendment, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's Regulations, for the Southern Indiana Market Lateral Project extending from Henderson County, Kentucky to Mount Vernon, Posey County, Indiana. The application of the Southern Indiana Market Lateral Project was originally filed on November 12, 2014 in Docket No. CP15-14-000. The amended filing may be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to J. Kyle Stephens, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs & Rates, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, telephone (713) 479-8059, fax (866) 459-7336, and email:
Texas Gas states that one of two new proposed industrial customers decided to cancel its participation in the project. To accommodate this change, Texas Gas proposes (1) to construct and operate an approximately 30.6-mile, 10-inch-diameter pipeline lateral with a capacity of 53.5 MMcf/day, instead of the originally proposed approximately 29.9 miles, 20-inch-diameter pipeline with a capacity of 166 MMcf/day; and (2) to remove the proposed construction of the metering facilities designed to serve the departing prospective customer. No new landowners are affected by the amended project. The cost of the amended project is approximately $63 million instead of $79.7 million as originally proposed.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 5 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of any mailed environmental documents, and will be notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 22, 2015.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
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.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on March 23, 2015, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco), 2800 Post Oak Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77056, filed in the above referenced docket an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization to construct and operate the Virginia Southside Expansion Project II (Project). Specifically, the Project will enable Transco to provide 250,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of incremental firm transportation service to one shipper, Virginia Power Services Energy Corp., Inc., all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Derrick Hughey, Senior Regulatory Analyst, P.O. Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, by telephone at (713) 215-2450.
Transco states that, the firm transportation service on the Project will be rendered by Transco pursuant to Rate Schedule FT of Transco's FERC Gas Tariff and Transco's blanket certificate under Part 284(G) of the Commission's Regulations. Transco states that the Project will involve the construction and operation of 4.33 miles of new 24-inch diameter pipeline facilities, 21,830 horsepower of gas turbine driven compression, 25,000 horsepower of electric motor driven compression and the construction or modification of associated aboveground and underground facilities. The cost of the project will be approximately $190.8 million.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit five copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Comment Date: April 22, 2015.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric proceeding has been initiated by the Commission:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i. Deadline for filing comments and protests is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. Please file your submittal electronically via the Internet (eFiling) in lieu of paper. Please refer to the instructions on the Commission's Web site under
j.
k.
Commission records indicate that the project was transferred to Mr. Richard Bertea by a Commission order issued May 6, 1991 (55 FERC ¶ 62,108). Since that time, the licensee (Mr. Bertea) has sold the project to Bently Family Limited Partnership around January 1999, without getting our approval for a transfer of license. Since then, the project stopped operating around the end of 1999. The Commission's San Francisco Regional Office has had several correspondences with the new owner and requested a plan and schedule to return the project to operation and to complete a formal request for a transfer of the license to the Bently Family Limited Partnership. Nothing was filed. On January 20, 2015, staff sent the licensee (Mr. Bertea), to his mailing address on record, a letter requiring the filing within 30 days, of an application for a transfer of license and a plan and schedule for restoring the operation of the project or an application to surrender the project's license. Staff also sent a copy of the letter to the Bently Family Limited Partnership. The letter stated that if no response is filed, the Commission will take action to terminate license by implied surrender pursuant to the Commission's regulations at 18 CFR 6.4. The letter to the licensee was returned due to lack of a forwarding address. Nothing was filed.
l. This notice is available for review and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also 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.
o.
p.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability of draft scientific assessment for public comment.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing this document on behalf of the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) to announce the availability of the Draft Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment for a sixty-day public review. Comments will be carefully reviewed by the relevant chapter author teams. Following revision and further review, a revised draft will undergo final federal interagency clearance.
Comments on this draft scientific assessment must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on June 8, 2015.
The Draft USGCRP Climate and Health Assessment is available at
All comments received through this process will be considered by the relevant chapter authors without knowledge of the commenters' identities. When the final assessment is issued, the comments and the commenters' names, along with the authors' responses, will become part of the public record and made available on
The final USGCRP Climate and Health Assessment will be available at
Allison Crimmins, Coordinator for the USGCRP Climate and Health Assessment, EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. (6207-A), Washington, DC 20460 (telephone number: 202-343-9170 or email address:
This document entitled Draft Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment has been developed under the auspices of The Interagency Group on Climate Change and Human Health (CCHHG), a working group of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), as part of the ongoing efforts of USGCRP's National Climate Assessment (NCA) and as called for under the President's Climate Action Plan. The draft assessment was written by federal employees, contractors, or affiliates who were selected from author nominations based on their demonstrated subject matter expertise, relevant publications, and knowledge of specific topics designated in the draft outline. This draft USGCRP Climate and Health Assessment responds to the 1990 Congressional mandate to periodically produce National Climate Assessments and to assist the nation in understanding, assessing, predicting, and responding to human-induced and natural processes of global change.
The purpose of this draft assessment is to provide a comprehensive, evidence-based, and, where possible, quantitative estimation of observed and projected climate change related health impacts in the United States. It is intended to inform public health officials, disaster response planners, multi-sector policy and decision makers, and other stakeholders about the risks that climate change presents to human health.
The focus of this draft assessment is the health impacts of climate change in the United States. The assessment does not include detailed discussions of climate mitigation, adaptation, or economic valuation, nor does it make policy recommendations. Similarly, while this assessment does not focus on health research needs or gaps, brief insights on research needs gained while conducting this assessment will be included at the end of each chapter.
The USGCRP welcomes all comments on the content of its draft assessment at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice advises interested persons that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC or Commission) Downloadable Security Technology Advisory Committee (DSTAC) will hold a meeting on April 21, 2015. At the meeting, the committee will receive reports from the Current Commercial Requirements Working Group and the Technology and Preferred Architectures Working Groups, establish the next set of working groups, discuss draft outlines for the committee report, and discuss any other topics related to the DSTAC's work that may arise.
April 21, 2015.
Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-C305 (Commission Meeting Room), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
For additional information on this proceeding, contact Brendan Murray,
The meeting will be held on April 21, 2015, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room of the Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-C305, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
The DSTAC is a Federal Advisory Committee that will “identify, report, and recommend performance objectives, technical capabilities, and technical standards of a not unduly burdensome, uniform, and technology- and platform-neutral software-based downloadable security system.”
The meeting on April 21, 2015 will be the third meeting of the DSTAC. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many attendees as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. The Commission will provide audio and/or video coverage of the meeting over the Internet from the FCC's Web page at
Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to
This notice corrects two notices (FR Doc. 2015-07170 and FR Doc. 2015-07158) both published on page 16682 of the issue for Monday, March 30, 2015.
Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago heading, the entries for First Business Financial Services, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, are revised to read as follows:
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
1.
Comments on this application must be received by April 14, 2015.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and section 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 22, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), under authority delegated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), proposes to amend its reporting form FR 2420 to expand the number of respondents and to collect additional data elements, in order to facilitate the Board's ability to carry out its monetary policy and supervisory responsibilities.
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board its authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), to approve and to assign OMB control numbers to collection of information
Comments must be submitted on or before June 8, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer, Shagufta Ahmed, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
Federal Reserve Board Acting Clearance Officer, Mark Tokarski, Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
The following information collection, which is being handled by the Board under OMB-delegated authority, has received initial Board approval and is hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collection, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB-delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Board's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, 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 information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
First, the proposed expanded data collection would improve unsecured money market monitoring and augment
Second, the proposed expanded data collection would provide broader and more detailed data for purposes of calculating the Federal Funds Effective Rate (FFER). The FR 2420 collection captures a greater share of federal funds activity than the brokered data that currently is used to construct the FFER, as depository institutions report both trades executed through brokers and those negotiated directly between counterparties. The data also allow for greater insight into the transactions underlying the federal funds rate, supporting a robust calculation process.
The revised collection also would allow for the publication of an overnight bank funding rate that is calculated using transactions in both federal funds and Eurodollars. This additional rate will be published to increase the amount and quality of information available to the public about the overnight funding costs of U.S.-based banking offices.
Third, the proposed expanded data collection would provide an important source of information on individual depository institutions' borrowing rates, which is necessary for more effective monitoring of firm-specific liquidity risks for purposes of supervisory surveillance. Specifically, the amended FR 2420, as proposed, would provide complementary rate information that will not be collected going forward by either the Complex Institution Liquidity Monitoring Report (FR 2052a; OMB No. 7100-0361) or the Liquidity Monitoring Report (FR 2052b; OMB No. 7100-0361). These FR 2052 reports currently collect consolidated liquidity information on depository institutions' funding activities, and a limited amount of information on borrowing rates. Going forward, however, information contained on the FR 2420 would replace certain information currently gathered on the FR 2052a, as these data elements would be dropped from the FR 2052a collection. Pricing information on the FR 2052b will not change, as that data is not similar to FR 2420 data. The amended FR 2420 as proposed would offer greater insight on the borrowing costs for these liabilities.
As specified below, the Board is proposing several changes to the reporting criteria, including (a) lowering the asset-size threshold for domestic depository institutions to report on the FR 2420, (b) raising the asset-size threshold for FBOs to report on the FR 2420, (c) adding an activity-based reporting criterion to capture meaningful activity of domestic depository institutions, (d) requiring FBOs to include the Eurodollar borrowings for certain Cayman or Nassau branches, and (e) requiring all FR 2420 respondents to submit separate reports for their International Banking Facilities (IBFs).
Under this proposal, exceptions to the reporting criteria may be made for those institutions that meet the asset size threshold but that demonstrate that they have an ongoing business model that results in a negligible amount of activity in these markets. In addition, an institution that did not meet the asset size threshold at the time of the most recent asset threshold review may be required to begin reporting transactions on the FR 2420 if its transactions consistently place it within the threshold levels.
The Board proposes to reduce the current asset threshold for domestic depository institutions to report on the FR 2420 from $26 billion or more in total assets to $15 billion or more in total assets. An important segment of federal funds activity that occurs at relatively high rates is not currently captured on the FR 2420 reporting sample because this activity is undertaken by domestic depository institutions with total assets that fall below the $26 billion reporting threshold. Expanding the current FR 2420 reporting panel to capture this activity is necessary to enhance the representativeness of the data collection, in particular for purposes of calculating the FFER. This proposed lower threshold is intended to balance the need for more comprehensive data against the reporting burden to the affected depository institutions. Specifically, it is anticipated that the proposed lower threshold would add approximately 34 domestic banks to the pool of FR 2420 respondents.
The Board proposes to increase the asset size threshold for FBOs to report on the FR 2420 from $900 million in third-party assets to $2.5 billion in third-party assets. This increased threshold would reduce the reporting panel by roughly 31 FBOs, many of which have reported a negligible amount of unsecured borrowing activity each day on the FR 2420. This proposal is intended to reduce reporting burden for these institutions.
The Board proposes to require domestic depository institutions with total assets ranging from $5 billion to $15 billion and federal funds activity of more than $200 million on more than two days during the preceding three months to report on all parts of the FR 2420. It is anticipated that there would be a modest number of institutions added to the FR 2420 reporting panel under this proposal. This activity threshold is intended to capture only domestic depository institutions in the specified asset range that are active borrowers in federal funds.
The Board proposes to require FBOs to include the Eurodollar borrowings for any “managed and controlled” branches located in the Cayman Islands or Nassau, Bahamas (Cayman and Nassau branches) with more than $2 billion in total assets on the FBO's FR 2420 report.
The Board proposes to require all FR 2420 respondents to submit a separate report (Schedule B only) for the Eurodollar borrowings of their IBFs. IBFs enable U.S. depository institutions to take foreign deposits (Eurodollars) in a U.S. office. The Board proposes to capture the Eurodollar activity of these entities on Schedule B of the FR 2420. The borrowings by these entities currently are believed to represent a modest proportion of overall Eurodollar activity; however, IBFs can be an important element of the overnight Eurodollar market facilitating transactions with international financial and official institutions.
The Board proposes to add a reporting field to the FR 2420 that would require respondents to identify counterparties by seven specified “counterparty type” categories. Understanding counterparty types would improve the assessments of which types of firms are providing funding to depository institutions. Information on counterparty type would be particularly critical during times of stress, when certain lender groups may reduce available funding. The following are the proposed FR 2420 counterparty designations, which are based on Call Report and FR 2900 definitions.
• U.S. depository institutions (includes their foreign branches and IBFs)
• U.S. branches and agencies of FBOs
• Foreign banks (includes IBFs of FBOs and Cayman and Nassau branches “managed and controlled” by the FBOs.)
• Non-depository financial institutions, not including federally-sponsored lending agencies
• Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs)
• Non-financial corporates
• Other
The Board proposes to add “trade date” and “settlement date” report fields to the FR 2420. Capturing a trade date field would affirm the actual trade date and would help to ensure the accuracy of other report elements. Settlement date is necessary to calculate the settlement period for forward starting transactions.
Currently, the FR 2420 only requires reporting of transactions settling on a spot basis. For federal funds and Eurodollars, spot basis settlement represents same-day settlement and, for CDs, two-day forward settlement. In order to capture the full complement of money market activity, the Board proposes to require reporting of transactions that settle on dates that do not conform to the spot convention; that is, to require reporting of transactions that settle beyond the day of trade execution for federal funds and Eurodollar transactions and on days other than two days after execution for CD transactions.
Currently, Part A of the FR 2420 report requires respondents to report all unsecured borrowings of U.S. dollars made to the reporting institution's U.S. offices on the report date, less deposits (as defined in the Call Report), debt instruments, and repurchase agreements. The Board proposes to amend the definition of “federal funds” applicable to the FR 2420 to correspond to a narrower set of transactions that is consistent with the provisions of the Board's Regulation D (Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions, 12 CFR part 204). Under the current definition, some FR 2420 respondents are reporting domestic borrowing transactions as federal funds borrowing that do not fall under the federal funds exemption outlined in Regulation D. Aligning the definition of “federal funds transactions” in Part A of the FR 2420 with the “federal funds” exemption in Regulation D would improve the correspondence between the reported transactions and liabilities that are exempt from reserve requirements.
The Board proposes to add a new Schedule AA to the FR 2420 report to capture selected unsecured wholesale borrowings that are currently being reported as federal funds borrowing on the FR 2420, but would not be included under the proposed federal funds definition described above. For example, a direct borrowing from a corporate lender would be included as a “federal funds borrowing” under the FR 2420's current definition of “federal funds,” but would not be included under the proposed “federal funds” definition described above. The proposed Schedule AA would continue to capture these non-deposit transactions but would re-categorize them as “wholesale borrowings.” These transactions represent a small, but potentially important, alternate source of information on depository institutions' funding costs. As these transactions are already reported on the current FR 2420 report, there should be minimal additional burden involved with reporting those same transactions on the proposed schedule to the report.
The Board proposes to add an “office identifier” field to the FR 2420 to identify the non-U.S. branch that booked each Eurodollar deposit. Currently, the FR 2420 requires respondents to report transactions from all non-U.S. branches of domestic institutions with more than $2 billion in total assets as Eurodollar transactions. Some of these transactions, however, are booked in countries with dollar deposit rates that are substantially different than the dollar deposit rates booked in Cayman or Nassau branches. For purposes of monitoring U.S.-based funding conditions and supporting the calculation of the overnight bank funding rate (OBFR), it is necessary to identify the branch that booked the transaction. Accordingly, the proposal would add an “office identifier” field to the FR 2420 to identify the non-U.S. branch that booked each Eurodollar deposit.
The Board proposes to require FR 2420 respondents to report all time deposits and certificates of deposit with a term equal to or greater than 7 days in Schedule C, regardless of whether the respondent labels them as “CDs” or “term time deposits.” The current FR 2420 instructions only require that “certificates of deposit” be reported. Discussions with market participants, however, have revealed that there is little distinction between a non-negotiable CD and a time deposit. In addition, some market participants have specifically not reported borrowings designated as “term time deposits” because they were not internally characterized as CDs. The proposed amendment will ensure more complete reporting of the relevant data.
Currently, the FR 2420 report does not have an “interest rate spread” reporting field. Without this field, the underlying value of the reference rate and spread components cannot be determined with certainty. Accordingly, the Board proposes to add an “interest rate spread” field to the FR 2420 report. This new reporting field will enable calculation of the value of the underlying reference rate without looking up the reference rate in an additional data source. This field would be labelled `NA' for fixed-rate CDs.
The Board proposes to add report fields to the FR 2420 that would identify CDs with embedded options as well as CDs and time deposits with rates that change over the term of the CD. CDs with options are becoming an increasingly important financial instrument with growing issuance, particularly in products with options to extend the maturity date. One additional data field would need to be added to identify instruments with embedded options. In addition, experience with the current data suggests that there is also a segment of the CD market with rates that rise or “step up” over the course of the instrument's life. An additional field would be necessary to identify these transactions. These fields could be particularly important for informing the use of CD rates in the calculation of reference rates, as options affect the comparability of instruments to others with the same stated maturity dates.
• CDs with embedded options would be identified under the proposal with an additional field that would capture the type of option, specifically `callable,' `puttable,' `extendable,' and `other,' or indicate `NA' for CDs without embedded options.
• Rates that will rise or fall over the life of the time deposit or CD based on a pre-arranged agreement would be identified under the proposal with an additional field that would be a `Y' or `N' step-up indicator.
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 May 1, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
1.
C. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
1.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of 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,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Medical Monitoring Project (MMP)—(OMB Control No. 0920-0740 Expiration: 5/31/2015)—Revision—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (DHAP) requests a revision of the currently approved Information Collection Request: “Medical Monitoring Project” expiring May 31, 2015. This data collection addresses the need for national estimates of access to and utilization of HIV-related medical care and services, the quality of HIV-related ambulatory care, and HIV-related behaviors and clinical outcomes.
For the proposed project, the same data collection methods will be used as for the currently approved project. Data would be collected from a probability sample of HIV-diagnosed adults in the U.S. who consent to an interview and abstraction of their medical records. As for the currently approved project, de-identified information would also be extracted from HIV case surveillance records for a dataset, referred to as the minimum dataset, which is used to assess non-response bias, for quality control, to improve the ability of MMP to monitor ongoing care and treatment of HIV-infected persons, and to make inferences from the MMP sample to HIV-diagnosed persons nationally. No other Federal agency collects such nationally representative population-based information from HIV-diagnosed adults. The data are expected to have significant implications for policy, program development, and resource allocation at the state/local and national levels.
The changes proposed in this request update the data collection system to meet prevailing information needs and enhance the value of MMP data, while remaining within the scope of the currently approved project purpose. The result is a 16% reduction in burden, or a reduction of 1,397 total burden hours annually.
• A change in sampling methods accounts for the net reduction in burden. Specifically, sampling from the existing HIV case surveillance database, the National HIV Surveillance System (NHSS, OMB Control No. 0920-0573, Exp. 2/29/2016) would replace the current health care-facility-based sampling. This change in sampling methods would broaden participation in MMP to all HIV-infected persons who have been diagnosed and reported to the NHSS, a population that is more representative of persons living with HIV than are persons receiving HIV medical care. Sampling from NHSS will allow MMP to address key information gaps related to increasing access to care, one of three strategic areas of national focus of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy. The change in project sampling methods reduces the amount of time health care facility staff will spend on project activities, substantially reducing burden hours and offsetting increases in burden from other changes, listed below. Restoration of the original sample of 26 geographic primary sampling units is proposed in this request, for more complete coverage of the population of interest. Three project areas that initially participated in MMP—and were subsequently dropped in 2009 because funding was restricted—will be reinstated as primary sampling units if funding allows.
• Increasing the sample size in three areas that were previously allocated comparatively small samples (Georgia, Illinois, and Pennsylvania) is expected to improve the ability to produce representative local estimates in these areas.
• Health care facility staff may be asked to look up contact information for sampled persons with incomplete or incorrect contact information in NHSS; this was not necessary in prior MMP cycles because the patient samples were drawn from facility records.
Finally, changes were made that did not affect the burden, listed below:
• The interview instrument was revised to enable the collection of critical information from HIV-infected persons not receiving medical care and to improve question coherence, boost the efficiency of the data collection, and increase the relevance and value of the information. These changes were based on an evaluation of the currently approved MMP interview instrument involving stakeholders, as well as a pilot which evaluated new questions (Formative Research and Tool Development, OMB Control No. 0920-0840, expiration 2/29/2016). These revisions did not change the average time required to complete the interview.
• Six data elements were removed from the medical record abstraction form and two data elements were added. Because the medical records are abstracted by MMP staff, these changes do not affect the burden of the project on the public.
• Sampled persons may be interviewed wherever they currently reside, conditional on local law and policy, and in a manner specified by a written, project-specific agreement with the HIV surveillance unit at the person's local health department.
• Videoconferencing was added as an optional mode of interview administration. Administering the interview via videoconferencing will provide more flexibility for participating in the interview and facilitate communication between respondent and interviewer, for example, by allowing interviewers to respond appropriately to a respondent's visual cues. Videoconferencing will also allow the interviewer to ensure that the respondent is using the correct response cards for interview questions. No audio/audiovisual recordings will be made of the interviews, including interviews administered by videoconferencing.
This proposed data collection would supplement the National HIV Surveillance System (NHSS, OMB Control No. 0920-0573, Exp. 2/29/2016) in 26 selected state and local health departments, which collect information on persons diagnosed with, living with, and dying from HIV infection and AIDS.
The participation of respondents is voluntary. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time. Through their participation, respondents will help to improve programs to prevent HIV infection as well as services for those who already have HIV. The total burden hours are 7,140.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of 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,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery—NEW—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, the CDC has submitted a Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR): “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery” to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
The information collection activity will garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d), Vol. 79, No. 83/Wednesday, April 30, 2014, a 60 day notice for public comment was published in the
This is a new collection of information. Respondents will take online surveys or participate in Web site usability testing, interviews, discussion groups, or focus groups. Below is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID) projected estimate for the next three years. There is no cost to respondents other than their time. The estimated annualized burden hours for this data collection activity is 3,850 hours:
Administration for Children and Families (ACF), HHS; Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), HHS.
Notice to announce the renewal of the Advisory Committee on the Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program Evaluation.
Sec. 511(g)(1) of Title V of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 711,
ACF and HRSA announce the renewal of the Advisory Committee on the Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program Evaluation to provide advice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“the Secretary”) on the design, plan, progress, and findings of the evaluation required under the Act.
T'Pring Westbrook, Administration for Children and Families;
Sec. 511(g)(1) of Title V of the Social Security Act mandates an Advisory Committee to review, and make recommendations on, the design and plan for the evaluation required under the Act. To comply with the authorizing directive and guidelines under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), a charter has been filed with the Committee Management Secretariat in the General Services Administration (GSA), the appropriate committees in the Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, and the Library of Congress to establish the Advisory Board as a non-discretionary federal advisory committee. The charter was filed on January 27, 2015.
The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice and make recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Assistant Secretary, ACF, and the Administrator, HRSA, with respect to the design, plan, progress, and results of the evaluation.
The Committee shall consist of up to 25 members appointed by the Secretary. Members shall be experts in the areas of program evaluation and research, education, and early childhood development. Members shall be appointed as Special Government Employees. The committee shall also include ex-officio members representing ACF, HRSA, and other agencies of the federal government designated by the Secretary as ex-officio members. The ACF Assistant Secretary and HRSA Administrator each shall recommend nominees for Co-Chairs of the Committee.
Members shall be invited to a 3-year term; such terms are contingent upon the renewal of the Committee by appropriate action prior to its termination.
Coordination, management, and operational services shall be provided by ACF, with assistance from HRSA.
A copy of the Committee charter can be obtained from the designated contact or by accessing the FACA database that is maintained by the GSA Committee Management Secretariat. The Web site for the FACA database is
Office of Head Start (OHS), Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
Notice of meetings.
Pursuant to the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007, Public Law 110-134, notice is hereby given of three 1-day Tribal Consultation Sessions to be held between the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, OHS leadership and the leadership of Tribal Governments operating Head Start (including Early Head Start) programs. The purpose of these Consultation Sessions is to discuss ways to better meet the needs of American Indian and Alaska Native children and their families, taking into consideration funding allocations, distribution formulas, and other issues affecting the delivery of Head Start services in their geographic locations [42 U.S.C. 9835, Section 640(l)(4)].
June 16, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.;
July 30, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.;
August 17, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Robert Bialas, Regional Program Manager, Region XI, Office of Head Start, email
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces OHS Tribal Consultations for leaders of Tribal Governments operating Head Start and Early Head Start programs.
The agenda for the scheduled OHS Tribal Consultations in Sacramento, California, Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Billings, Montana, will be organized around the statutory purposes of Head Start Tribal Consultations related to meeting the needs of American Indian/Alaska Native children and families, taking into consideration funding allocations, distribution formulas, and other issues affecting the delivery of Head Start services in their geographic locations. In addition, OHS will share actions taken and in progress to address the issues and concerns raised in 2014 OHS Tribal Consultations.
The Consultation Sessions will be conducted with elected or appointed leaders of Tribal Governments and their designated representatives [42 U.S.C. 9835, Section 640(l)(4)(A)]. Designees must have a letter from the Tribal Government authorizing them to represent the tribe prior to the Consultation Sessions. Other representatives of tribal organizations and Native nonprofit organizations are welcome to attend as observers.
A detailed report of the Consultation Sessions will be prepared and made available within 45 days of the Consultation Sessions to all Tribal Governments receiving funds for Head Start and Early Head Start programs. Tribes wishing to submit written testimony for the report should send testimony to Robert Bialas at
OHS will summarize oral testimony and comments from each Consultation Session in the report without attribution, along with topics of concern and recommendations. OHS has sent hotel and logistical information for the California, Oklahoma, and Montana Consultation Sessions to tribal leaders via email and posted information on the Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center Web site at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare pediatric disease product application. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), authorizes FDA to award priority review vouchers to sponsors of rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA has determined that CHOLBAM (cholic acid), manufactured by Asklepion Pharmaceuticals, LLC, meets the criteria for a priority review voucher.
Larry Bauer, Rare Diseases Program, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-4842, FAX: 301-796-9858, email:
FDA is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare pediatric disease product application. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff), added by FDASIA, FDA will award priority review vouchers to sponsors of rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA has determined that CHOLBAM (cholic acid), manufactured by Asklepion Pharmaceuticals, LLC, meets the criteria for a priority review voucher. CHOLBAM (cholic acid) is a bile acid indicated for the treatment of bile acid synthesis disorders due to single enzyme defects and as adjunctive treatment of peroxisomal disorders, including Zellweger spectrum disorders in patients who exhibit manifestations of liver disease or steatorrhea or complications from decreased fat soluble vitamin absorption. Bile acid synthesis disorders is a group of rare congenital disorders caused by the absence or malfunction of an enzyme involved in an important metabolic pathway, leading to a failure to produce normal bile acids.
For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529 of the FD&C Act, go to
For further information about CHOLBAM (cholic acid), go to the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare pediatric disease product application. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), authorizes FDA to award priority review vouchers to sponsors of rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA has determined that UNITUXIN (dinutuximab), manufactured by United Therapeutics Corporation, meets the criteria for a priority review voucher.
Larry Bauer, Rare Diseases Program, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-4842, FAX: 301-796-9858, email:
FDA is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare pediatric disease product application. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff), added by FDASIA, FDA will award priority review vouchers to sponsors of rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA has determined that UNITUXIN (dinutuximab), manufactured by United Therapeutics Corporation, meets the criteria for a priority review voucher. UNITUXIN (dinutuximab) is indicated, in combination with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), interleukin-2 (IL-2), and 13-cis-retinoic acid (RA), for the treatment of pediatric patients with high-risk neuroblastoma who achieve at least a partial response to prior first-line multiagent, multimodality therapy. Neuroblastoma is the most common pediatric solid tumor occurring outside the brain, and it is the most common cancer in infants.
For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529 of the FD&C Act, go to
For further information about UNITUXIN (dinutuximab), go to the Drugs@FDA Web site at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies: Modifications and Revisions.” This guidance provides information on how FDA will define and process submissions for modifications and revisions to risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS), as well as information on what types of changes to approved REMS will be considered modifications of the REMS and what types of changes will be considered revisions of the REMS. There are different procedures for submission of REMS modifications and revisions to FDA as well as different timeframes for FDA review and action of such changes. In addition, this guidance provides information on how REMS modifications and revisions should be submitted to FDA and how FDA intends to review and act on these submissions. The definitions of REMS modifications and revisions apply to all types of REMS.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the guidance by June 8, 2015. Submit either electronic or written comments concerning the proposed collection of information by June 8, 2015.
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave. Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or the Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Kristen Everett, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg. 22, Rm. 6484, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-0453; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies: Modifications and Revisions.” This guidance provides information on what types of changes to approved REMS will be considered modifications and what types of changes will be considered revisions. See section 505-1(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355-1(h)). This guidance also provides information on how REMS modifications and revisions should be submitted to FDA and how FDA intends to review and act on these submissions.
If FDA determines that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the benefits of a drug outweigh its risks, FDA is authorized to require a REMS for such drugs under section 505-1 of the FD&C Act,
In 2009, FDA issued draft guidance on the format and content of REMS, REMS assessments, and proposed REMS modifications. In that guidance, based on the language of section 505-1(g) and (h) of the FD&C Act before the amendments made by the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144) (FDASIA), FDA stated that any proposed modification to an approved REMS, including proposed changes to materials that are appended to the REMS document, must be submitted as a proposed REMS modification in the form of a prior approval supplement and must include a REMS assessment. The guidance stated that the proposed
FDASIA amended the REMS modification provisions under section 505-1(g) and (h) of the FD&C Act. Section 505-1(h), as amended by FDASIA, requires FDA to review and act on proposed “minor modifications,” as defined in guidance, within 60 days.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). This guidance, except for the portion setting forth the submission procedures for REMS revisions, is being implemented without prior public comment because the Agency has determined that prior public participation is not feasible or appropriate (21 CFR 10.115(g)(2)). The Agency made this determination because, consistent with the requirements of FDASIA, FDA is issuing this guidance to establish a less burdensome policy and process for submitting certain changes to REMS that is consistent with public health. Although the guidance document is immediately in effect, except for the submission procedures for REMS revisions, it remains subject to comment in accordance with the Agency's good guidance practices. Insofar as this guidance establishes the modifications to an approved REMS that may be implemented following notification to the Secretary under section 505-1(h)(2)(A)(iv)—here referred to as REMS revisions—it has binding effect, except for the portion of the guidance setting forth the submission procedure for REMS revisions, which will, when final, have binding effect.
This guidance contains information collection provisions that 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 title, description, and respondent description of the information collection are given under this section with an estimate of the annual reporting burden. Included in the estimate is the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
We invite 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.
REMS modifications are submitted to FDA as supplements to approved NDAs under 21 CFR 314.70 and for ANDAs under 21 CFR 314.97, and as supplements to approved BLAs under 21 CFR 601.12. The burden hours for preparing and submitting supplements to NDAs and ANDAs is approved by OMB under control number 0910-0001, and for BLAs under control number 0910-0338.
Concerning REMS revisions, application holders should include the following information in each submission: (1) A full description of the changes to the REMS and/or appended materials, the date the changes will be implemented, and a REMS history that outlines all changes made to the REMS since its approval; (2) a clean Word version of the revised REMS and all appended REMS materials; (3) a redlined (tracked changes) Word version of the revised REMS and revised appended REMS materials that shows the changes from the previous versions; (4) an updated REMS supporting document, if needed; and (5) Form FDA 356h indicating that the submission is a REMS revision. (Form FDA 356h is approved by OMB under control number 0910-0338.) Each REMS revision that is submitted to FDA should also be documented in the next annual report for the application under 21 CFR 314.81(b)(2) (the burden hours for preparing and submitting annual reports for NDAs and ANDAs is approved by OMB under control number 0910-0001, and for BLAs under control number 0910-0338). All subsequent REMS submissions (
Currently, there are 117 application holders with approved REMS that include 152 drugs. Based on FDA's current review of REMS submissions for approved NDAs, ANDAs, and BLAs, and anticipating an average of 1 REMS revision across the entire group of REMS, we estimate that annually a total of approximately 117 application holders (“Number of Respondents” in table 1) will submit to FDA approximately 152 REMS revision submissions (“Total Annual Responses” in table 1) as described in this document and in the guidance. We also estimate that it will take an application holder approximately 30 hours to prepare and submit to FDA each REMS revision (“Average Burden per Response” in table 1).
The total estimated reporting burden for the guidance is as follows:
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or Department).
Notice of an Altered System of Records.
In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is publishing notice of a proposed alteration of the system of records entitled and numbered “Public Health and National Health Service Corps Scholarship Program (NHSC SP), National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Program (NHSC LRP), Students to Service, (S2S), NHSC Student/Resident Experiences and Rotations in Community Health (SEARCH), NURSE Corps Loan Repayment Program (NURSE Corps LRP) formerly the Nursing Education Loan Repayment Program (NELRP), NURSE Corps Scholarship Program (NURSE Corps SP) formerly the Nursing Scholarship Program (NSP), Native Hawaiian Health Scholarship Program (NHHSP), and Faculty Loan Repayment Program (FLRP), Applicants and/or Participants Records System, HHS/HRSA/BHW,” No. 09-15-0037. The proposed alterations affect the system name, system location, categories of records, purposes, routine uses, safeguards, records retention and disposal, system manager title and address, as well as minor editorial corrections and clarifications.
HRSA filed an altered system report with the Chair of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on March 30, 2015. To ensure all parties have adequate time in which to comment, the altered system, including the routine uses, will become effective 30 days from the publication of the notice or 40 days from the date it was submitted to OMB and Congress, whichever is later, unless HRSA receives comments that require alterations to this notice.
Please address comments to: Associate Administrator, Bureau of Health Workforce (BHW), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11W-37, Rockville, MD 20857, telephone (301) 594-4130, or FAX (301) 594-4076. Comments received will be available for inspection at this same address from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time Zone), Monday through Friday.
BMISS System Manager, Bureau of Health Workforce, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11W-37, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: 301-443-1587.
• The system of records notice name has been shortened to “HHS/HRSA/BHW Scholarship and Loan Repayment Program Records.”
• The Nursing Scholarship Program (NSP) has been renamed the NURSE Corps Scholarship Program (NURSE Corps SP), and the Nursing Education Loan Repayment Program (NELRP) has been renamed the NURSE Corps Loan Repayment Program (NURSE Corps LRP) and all associated records have been merged into a new central database system as noted below.
• A new information system, BHW Management Information System Solution (BMISS), has replaced Bureau of Health Care Delivery and Assistance NET (BHCDANET), and serves as the central database for information concerning the, NHSC SP, NHSC LRP, S2S, NURSE Corps SP, NURSE Corps LRP, FLRP, and NHHSP.
• The system location section has been updated to indicate that electronic records and electronic copies of paper records for applicants and participants under various programs are now stored in BMISS and to include locations of records not stored in BMISS (for example, Ambassador records are electronic but currently maintained in an online Web site directory while a BMISS database is being designed and built, at which point the records will be merged into BMISS).
• The categories of records have been updated to include “information concerning educational loans.”
• The purpose(s) section has been updated to consolidate certain descriptions (
• The routine uses have been revised for editorial clarity and otherwise updated as follows:
○ Former routine use 15, pertaining to preparation of financial management and accounting documentation and information to be provided to the Department of the Treasury, has been deleted and is instead covered in the SORN for the “Unified Financial Management System,” System No. 09-90-0024, which receives information from this system for that purpose.
○ Former routine uses 17, 18, 21 and 22, and a portion of what is now routine use 16 (formerly 14 and 24), pertaining to collection of delinquent federal debts, have been deleted because they are included in the SORN for the “Debt Management and Collection System,” System No. 09-40-0012 (see 7, 10, 11, 13), which receives information from this system for those purposes.
○ Routine use 8 has been updated to specify that the information that may be disclosed includes a participant's name, Social Security number (SSN), mailing address, email address, phone number, health professions school, residency training, specialty, program status, award years, service start and end dates, and service site address and phone number.
○ Routine use 11 has been updated allowing HHS to release to the participant's service site information from the participant's file, including but not limited to, his/her allegations concerning conditions at the site, disputes with site management, or circumstances surrounding his/her resignation/termination for the purpose of monitoring the program participant's compliance with the service obligation, including fact-finding to calculate service credit, to decide transfer requests, or to make default determinations.
○ Routine use 14 has been added to allow HHS to disclose information consisting of name, address, SSN, health professions license number, and place of employment to a state or local government agency, including any agent thereof, maintaining criminal, civil, or administrative violation records, or other pertinent information such as records regarding the investigation or resolution of allegations involving a program participant. The purpose of this disclosure is to enable HHS to monitor compliance with program requirements and make determinations regarding administrative actions or other remedies, including default determinations.
○ Routine use 15 has been added to allow HHS to disclose Ambassador information consisting of name, email and social network address(es), phone number(s), employment information, and professional biographies to current and prospective participants in BHW programs and other interested individuals. The purpose of this disclosure is to allow these individuals to contact Ambassadors who serve as mentors and local resources for the NHSC programs.
○ Routine use 17 (formerly 16) has been updated to allow HHS to disclose information to loan servicing agencies for the purposes of obtaining payoff balances on educational loans and determining whether loans are eligible for repayment under the programs.
○ Routine use 19 (formerly 20) has been updated to allow HHS to disclose information to the Department of the Treasury to determine if the applicant's name appears on the Do Not Pay List for program integrity/applicant eligibility purposes.
• The safeguards section has been updated to include encryption, intrusion detection, and firewalls.
• The retention and disposal section has been expanded and updated to include records created in BMISS or digitized and migrated into BMISS, and to cite applicable disposition schedules.
• The system manager contact information has been updated.
• The notification procedure has been revised to reflect the information that must be included in a notification request made by mail.
• The record source categories have been revised to include these additional sources: System for Awards Management (SAM) (formerly the Excluded Parties List System); HHS Office of Inspector General Web site listing individuals excluded from Medicare, Medicaid, and all other federal health care programs; and HHS database of Health Professional Shortage Areas.
• Other minor editorial corrections have been made to reflect the elimination of the Bureau of Clinician Recruitment and Services (BCRS) and the transfer of its functions to the newly established Bureau of Health Workforce (BHW).
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) governs the means by which the U.S. Government collects, maintains, and uses information about individuals in a system of records. A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of a federal agency from which information about an individual is retrieved by the individual's name or other personal identifier. The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish in the
HHS/HRSA/BHW Scholarship and Loan Repayment Program Records
Unclassified
The servers for the central database (known as the Bureau of Health Workforce (BHW) Management Information System Solution (BMISS)) are located at the Center for Information Technology, National Institutes of Health, 12 South Drive, Room 1100, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, and are accessed from computer workstations in program offices listed below. Paper copies of records included in the central database, and any paper or electronic records not included in the central database, are also stored in the program offices listed below:
• Native Hawaiian Health Scholarship Program (NHHSP) records are located at the BHW, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 9-105, Rockville, MD 20857 and at Papa Ola Lokahi, 894 Queen St., #706, Honolulu, HI 96813.
• Ready Responder electronic records are located at BHW, HRSA, HHS, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 15W-21D, Rockville, MD 20857.
• NHSC Student/Resident Experiences and Rotations in Community Health (SEARCH) records are located at BHW HRSA, HHS, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 7-100, Rockville, MD 20857.
Additional records (
• Customer Care Center, Teletech, 8123 South Hardy Dr., Tempe, AZ 85284;
• Futrend Technology, Inc., 8605 Westwood Center Dr., Suite 502, Vienna, VA 22182;
• Sapient Government Services, 1515 N. Courthouse Rd., 4th Floor, Arlington, VA 22201.
Because contractors may change, a current listing of contractors and locations (if different from above) is available upon request by contacting the Policy-Coordinating Official. Archived records (including scanned paper files that have been merged into BMISS) are stored at the Washington National Records Center, 4205 Suitland Road, Suitland, MD 20746.
The system contains information about the following categories of individuals:
• Individuals who have applied for, who are receiving, or who have received awards under the following programs: the National Health Service Corps Scholarship Program (NHSC SP), the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Program (NHSC LRP), Students to Service (S2S), the NURSE Corps Loan Repayment Program (NURSE Corps LRP) formerly the Nursing Education Loan Repayment Program (NELRP), the NURSE Corps Scholarship Program (NURSE Corps SP) formerly the Nursing Scholarship Program (NSP), the Native Hawaiian Health Scholarship Program (NHHSP), and the Faculty Loan Repayment Program (FLRP).
• Individuals who have applied to participate, are participating, or have participated in the NHSC Student/Resident Experiences and Rotations in Community Health (SEARCH) Program.
• Individuals who are current or former Ambassadors, Alumni, or Ready Responders.
• Individuals who indicate an interest in employment in or an assignment to a medical facility located in a Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA) or a medically underserved population area, including public and federal medical facilities, such as Bureau of Prisons medical facilities, Indian Health Service health care facilities, and other federally sponsored health care facilities.
Records include the individual's name, address(es), telephone number(s), email address(es), Social Security number (SSN); scholarship, loan repayment, Ambassadors, Alumni, Ready Responders or SEARCH application and associated forms/documents, contracts, employment data, professional performance and credentialing history of licensed health professionals; preference for site-selection; personal, professional, and demographic background information; academic and/or service progress reports (which include related data, correspondence, and professional performance information consisting of continuing education, performance awards, and adverse or disciplinary actions); commercial credit reports, educational data including tuition and other related education expenses; educational data including academic program and status; information concerning educational loans; employment status verification (which includes certifications and verifications of service obligation); medical data, financial data, payment data and related forms, deferment/placement/suspension/waiver data and supporting documentation; repayment/delinquent/default status information, correspondence to and from Program applicants and participants and/or their representatives, Claims Collection Litigation Reports for default cases referred to the Department of Justice (DOJ).
• Section 333 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 254f), Assignment of Corps Personnel;
• Section 225 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 234), as in effect on September 30, 1977, PH/NHSC Scholarship Training Program;
• Section 409(b) of the Health Professions Educational Assistance Act of 1976, (42 U.S.C. 295g), PSASP;
• Sections 338A-H of the PHS Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 254l-q), NHSC Scholarship and Loan Repayment Programs;
• Sections 336(c) and 331(b)(1) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 254h-1(c) and 254d(b)(1)), SEARCH;
• Section 846 of the PHS Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 297n), NURSE Corps Loan Repayment Program (formerly the Nursing Education Loan Repayment Program) and NURSE Corps Scholarship Program (formerly the Nursing Scholarship Program);
• Section 10 of the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 11709), NHHSP;
• Section 738(a) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 293b(a)), Faculty Loan Repayment Program;
• Section 202 of Title II of Pub. L. 92-157 (42 U.S.C. 3505d), National Health Professional Shortage Clearinghouse;
• 31 U.S.C. 7701(c), Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Requirement That Applicant Furnish Taxpayer Identifying Number;
• Section 215(a) of the PHS Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 216(a)), pertaining to PHS commissioned officers, and 5 U.S.C. 3301 pertaining to civil service employees, both of which authorize verification of an individual's suitability for employment.
Relevant agency personnel use records about individuals from this system on a need to know basis for the following purposes:
1. To obtain marketing and recruitment information concerning individuals who registered to complete an online application, but did not submit or complete an application.
2. To identify and select qualified individuals to participate in the above-identified Programs.
3. To maintain records on and to verify Program applicants' or participants' credentials and educational background, and previous and current professional employment data and performance history information to verify that all claimed background and employment data are valid and all claimed credentials are current and in good standing from selection for an award through the completion of service.
4. To assist the HHS Program Support Center (PSC), the DOJ, and other government entities in the collection of Program debts.
5. To respond to inquiries from Program applicants and participants, their attorneys or other authorized representatives, and Congressional representatives.
6. To compile and generate managerial and statistical reports.
7. With respect to the PH/NHSC and NHSC SP, NHHSP, NURSE Corps SP (formerly NSP), NHSC LRP, NURSE Corps LRP (formerly NELRP), and FLRP: (a) to select and match scholarship recipients, loan repayors, and other individuals for assignment to or employment with a health care or other facility appropriate to the Programs' purposes; (b) to perform loan repayment and scholarship program administrative activities, including, but not limited to, payment tracking, deferment of the service obligation, monitoring a participant's compliance with the service requirements, determination of service completion, review of suspension or waiver requests, default determinations, and calculation of liability upon default; and (c) to monitor
8. With respect to the SEARCH Program: (a) to track recruitment of SEARCH participants for the NHSC Scholarship and Loan Repayment Programs; and (b) to determine how many non-obligated SEARCH participants ultimately practice primary health care in a Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA).
9. With respect to the Ambassador and Alumni activities: (a) to advocate for more health professions students to choose primary care; (b) to mentor students and clinicians; and (c) to recruit students and clinicians for the NHSC Scholarship and Loan Repayment Programs, and to train community leaders and local clinicians to care about and for people in need.
10. To transfer records of delinquent federal debts to System No. 09-40-0012, Debt Management and Collection System, for debt collection purposes.
11. To transfer information to System No. 09-90-0024, Unified Financial Management System (UFMS), for purposes of effecting payment of program funds (through the Department of the Treasury) and preparing and maintaining financial management and accounting documentation related to obligations and disbursements of funds, (including providing notifications to the Department of the Treasury) related to payments to, or on behalf of, awardees. Information transferred to UFMS for these purposes is limited to the individual's name, address, SSN and other information necessary to identify him/her, the funding being sought or amount of qualifying educational loans, and the program under which the awardee is being processed.
In addition to the disclosures authorized by the Privacy Act at 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(2) and (b)(4)-(b)(11), information about an individual may be disclosed from this system of records to parties outside HHS, without the individual's prior, written consent, for these routine uses:
1. HHS may disclose to a Member of Congress or to a Congressional staff member information from the record of an individual in response to a written inquiry from the Congressional office made at the written request of that individual.
2. HHS may disclose information from this system of records to the Department of Justice (DOJ) or to a court or other tribunal when
a. HHS, or any component thereof, or
b. Any HHS employee in his or her official capacity, or
c. Any HHS employee in his or her individual capacity where the DOJ (or HHS, where it is authorized to do so) has agreed to represent the employee, or
d. The United States Government, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, HHS determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and that, therefore, the use of such records by the DOJ, court, or other tribunal is deemed by HHS to be compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.
3. In the event that a record on its face, or in conjunction with other records, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, disclosure may be made to the appropriate public authority, whether federal, state, local, tribal, or otherwise, responsible for enforcing, investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute or rule, regulation or order issued pursuant thereto, if the information is relevant to the enforcement, regulatory, investigative, or prosecutorial responsibility of the receiving entity. This includes, but is not limited to, disciplinary actions by state licensing boards against current or former Program participants.
4. HHS may disclose information consisting of names, SSN, disciplines and/or medical specialties, current mailing addresses, dates of scholarship support, and dates of graduation of NHSC SP, NURSE Corps SP (formerly NSP) and NHHSP scholarship recipients to: (a) designated coordinators at each health professions school participating in the scholarship program for the purpose of determining educational expenses and resulting levels of scholarship support, and for the purpose of guiding and informing these recipients about the nature of their service obligation; and (b) schools attended by scholarship recipients who have taken a leave of absence from school, have terminated enrollment or been dismissed from school, or are repeating coursework, for the purpose of determining their academic status and whether their scholarship support should be suspended or resumed, as appropriate.
5. HHS may disclose information consisting of name, address, discipline and/or medical specialty, and SSN from this system of records to a Program participant's health professions school, residency program, or other postgraduate training program, for the purpose of ascertaining the participant's enrollment status and training completion or graduation date.
6. HHS may disclose records consisting of names, disciplines and/or medical specialties, current business or school mailing addresses, email addresses of the Programs' scholarship and loan repayment participants to contractors, Ambassadors, Alumni, and professional organizations in underserved communities for the purpose of supporting these clinicians in the course of their service obligation in a HPSA, school of nursing, or critical shortage facility.
7. HHS or its contractors may disclose records consisting of a SEARCH participant's name, mailing address, email address, phone number, health professions school, residency training and specialty to state Primary Care Offices (PCOs) and Primary Care Associations (PCAs) and site representatives for the purpose of matching participants to potential employment sites.
8. HHS may disclose records consisting of a participant's name, SSN, mailing address, email address, phone number, health professions school, residency training, specialty, program status, award years, service start and end dates, and service site address and phone number to Department grantees, contractors and subcontractors who assist with the implementation of the above-identified Programs, for the purposes of collecting, compiling, aggregating, analyzing, or refining records in the system, or improving Program operations. Grantees and contractors maintain, and contractors are also required to ensure that subcontractors maintain, Privacy Act safeguards with respect to such records.
9. HHS may disclose biographical data and information supplied by Program applicants or participants: (a) To references listed on the application and associated forms for the purpose of evaluating the applicant's or participant's professional qualifications, experience, and suitability; (b) to a state or local government licensing board and/or to the Federation of State Medical Boards or a similar non-government entity for the purpose of verifying that all claimed background and employment data are valid and all claimed credentials are current and in good standing; and (c) to prospective, current or former employers, or to site representatives, PCAs, and PCOs for the purpose of appraising the applicant's professional qualifications and
10. HHS may disclose an applicant's or participant's name, mailing address, email address, phone number, SSN, health professions school, residency training, and specialty to Department grantees, site representatives, contractors, and subcontractors who assist with the implementation of the above-identified Programs, for the purpose of recruiting, screening, evaluating, and matching, placing, or assigning health professionals to a service site appropriate to the relevant Program's purposes. In addition, Department grantees, contractors and subcontractors may disclose biographical data and information supplied by Program applicants, participants, or references listed on the application and associated forms: (a) To other references for the purpose of evaluating the applicant's or participant's professional qualifications, experience, and suitability; (b) to a state or local government licensing board and/or to the Federation of State Medical Boards or a similar non-government entity for the purpose of verifying that all claimed background and employment data are valid and all claimed credentials are current and in good standing; (c) to the System for Awards Management (formerly Excluded Parties List System) for the purpose of determining whether applicants or participants are suspended, debarred, or disqualified from participation in covered transactions; (d) to the National Practitioner Data Bank for the purpose of determining whether applicants or participants have information on their reports; and (e) to prospective employers, or to site representatives, for the purpose of appraising the applicant's or participant's professional qualifications and suitability for site assignment or employment. Grantees and contractors maintain, and contractors are also required to ensure that subcontractors maintain, Privacy Act safeguards with respect to such records.
11. HHS may disclose records consisting of name, mailing address, email address, phone number, SSN, specialty, and requested or actual placement site(s) to State Loan Repayment Grantees, state PCOs and PCAs, and site representatives to facilitate PCO, PCA and site activities related to recruitment and placement of Program participants at service sites. For the purpose of monitoring the program participant's compliance with the service obligation, including fact-finding to calculate service credit, to decide transfer requests, or to make default determinations, HHS may release to the participant's service site other information from the participant's file, including but not limited to, his/her allegations concerning conditions at the site, disputes with site management, or circumstances surrounding his/her resignation/termination.
12. HHS may disclose records to a state or local government licensing board and/or to the Federation of State Medical Boards or a similar non-government entity which maintains records concerning: (a) An individual's employment history; (b) the issuance, retention, suspension, revocation, or reinstatement of licenses or registrations necessary to practice a health professional occupation or specialty; (c) disciplinary action against the individual or other sanctions imposed by a state or local government licensing board; or (d) the individual's attempts to pass health professions licensure exam(s). This disclosure may include the applicant's or participant's name, address, SSN, employment history, educational data, accreditation, licensing, and professional qualification data, and facts concerning any clinical competence, unprofessional behavior, or substance abuse problem of which HHS is aware. The purposes of this disclosure are: (1) To enable HHS to obtain information relevant to a decision concerning a health professional's accomplishments, professional and personal background qualifications, experience, and any licensure sanctions related to substance abuse, to determine the individual's suitability for employment, retention, or termination as a health services provider at a health care facility approved by the relevant Program; and (2) to inform health professions licensing boards or the appropriate non-government entities about the health care practices or conduct of a practicing, terminated, resigned, or retired health services provider whose professional conduct so significantly failed to conform to generally accepted standards of professional practice for health care providers as to raise reasonable concern for the health and safety of patients.
13. HHS may disclose information consisting of name, address, SSN, health professions license number, and place of employment from this system of records to federal, state, or local health agencies and law enforcement regarding a program participant who has a physical or mental condition that is, or has the potential to become, a risk to patients or to the public at large, or whose aberrant behavior poses such a risk (
14. HHS may disclose information consisting of name, address, SSN, health professions license number, and place of employment to a state or local government agency, including any agent thereof, maintaining criminal, civil, or administrative violation records, or other pertinent information such as records regarding the investigation or resolution of allegations involving a program participant. The purpose of this disclosure is to enable HHS to monitor compliance with program requirements and make determinations regarding administrative actions or other remedies, including default determinations.
15. HHS may disclose Ambassador information consisting of name, email and social network address(es), phone number(s), employment information, and professional biographies to current and prospective participants in BHW programs and other interested individuals. The purpose of this disclosure is to allow these individuals to contact Ambassadors who serve as mentors and local resources for the NHSC programs.
16. HHS may disclose information from this system of records to a consumer reporting agency, as defined in 31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3), for the following purposes:
a. To obtain a commercial credit report to assess the creditworthiness of a scholarship or loan repayment applicant;
b. To verify information provided on the scholarship or loan repayment application concerning whether the applicant has ever defaulted on a federal or non-federal obligation, or had delinquent federal or non-federal debts or judgment liens;
c. To determine and verify the eligibility of loans submitted for repayment;
d. To assess and verify ability of a debtor to repay debts owed to the federal government; and
e. To provide an incentive for debtors to repay federal debts by making these debts part of their credit records.
Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3711(e)(1)(F), the information disclosed to the consumer reporting agency is limited to (i) information necessary to establish the identity of the person, including name, address, and taxpayer identification number; (ii) the amount, status, and history of the claim; and (iii) the agency or program under which the claim arose.
17. HHS may disclose information about NHSC LRP, S2S, NURSE Corps LRP (formerly NELRP), and FLRP
18. HHS may disclose information to the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), about an individual applying under the above-identified Programs to find out whether the applicant has a delinquent tax debt. This disclosure is for the sole purpose of determining the applicant's eligibility for funding and/or creditworthiness and is limited to the individual's name, address, SSN, other information necessary to identify him/her, and the program for which the information is being obtained.
19. HHS may disclose information from this system of records to another federal, state, or local agency or private employer to whom a Program defaulter has applied for federal grant funds, federal scholarship, loan, or loan repayment funds, or employment involving federal funds, for the purpose of ensuring that the Program defaulter does not receive federal funds for which he/she is ineligible. Disclosure will be limited to the defaulter's name, address, SSN, inclusion on the Do Not Pay List, and any other information necessary to identify him/her.
20. HHS may disclose information from this system of records to the DOJ and applicable state agencies in order to exclude a debtor from all federal health care programs, as defined in 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(f), including Medicare and Medicaid, or to conclude a settlement agreement staying such an exclusion.
21. HHS may disclose information from this system of records to other federal, state, and local agencies, and public and private entities that provide scholarship and/or loan repayment funding or include bonus clauses in employment contracts, for the following purposes: (a) to curtail fraud and abuse of federal funds by identifying individuals who have applied for, or accepted, funding from another source for performance of the same service; and (b) to determine if an applicant has an existing service obligation to another federal, state, local, or other entity.
22. HHS may disclose to federal, state, and local agencies, and public and private non-profit entities for research purposes, the name, address(es), SSN, discipline and service sites of applicants and participants in the above-identified Programs when the Department:
i. has determined that the use or disclosure does not violate legal or policy limitations under which the record was provided, collected, or obtained;
ii. has determined that a bona fide research/analysis purpose exists;
iii. has required the recipient to:
• establish strict limitations concerning the receipt and use of applicant- and participant-identified data;
• establish reasonable administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect the confidentiality of the data and to prevent the unauthorized use or disclosure of the record;
• remove, destroy, or return the information that identifies the applicant or participant at the earliest time at which removal or destruction can be accomplished consistent with the purpose of the research project, unless the recipient has presented adequate justification of a research nature for retaining such information; and
• make no further use or disclosure of the record except as authorized by HHS or when required by law; and
iv. has secured a written statement attesting to the recipient's understanding of, and willingness to abide by these provisions.
23. Disclosure may be made in response to a subpoena from another federal agency having the power to subpoena other agencies' records, such as the IRS or U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
24. Disclosure of information from this system of records may be made to the HHS/PSC/Federal Occupational Health contract physicians to review and provide a written opinion of the medical documentation submitted by scholarship and loan repayment Program participants seeking a suspension or waiver of their service or payment obligation.
25. Disclosure to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) if captured in an intrusion detection system used by HHS and DHS pursuant to a DHS cybersecurity program that monitors Internet traffic to and from federal government computer networks to prevent a variety of types of cybersecurity incidents.
26. HHS may disclose records to appropriate federal agencies and Department contractors that have a need to know the information for the purpose of assisting the Department's efforts to respond to a suspected or confirmed breach of the security or confidentiality of information maintained in this system of records, when the information disclosed is relevant and necessary for that assistance.
Because, as described in the Purposes section, certain information from this system of records is transferred to HHS' financial and debt management systems, those systems' SORNs should be consulted for additional routine use disclosures that may be made without the individual's consent. See Unified Financial Management System, System No. 09-90-0024, and Debt Management and Collection System, System No. 09-40-0012.
Records are maintained in electronic database servers and backup servers, file folders, and for NHHSP records, backup tapes.
Records are retrieved by an individual's name, Social Security number, or other identifying numbers or characteristics.
a.
b.
c.
Servers and other computer equipment used to process identifiable
With respect to NHHSP records located at Papa Ola Lokahi (POL), an entity HRSA/BWH collaborates with to administer the NHHSP, the building in which POL's office is located is publicly accessible but secured, with limited accessibility before and after work hours. Security guards visit the building at night. NHHSP's office suite is kept locked during work hours and individual offices are also locked when vacant. Applicant and participant files are kept in a locked cabinet in a locked office. Access to these files is limited to approved staff members, and when the area the files are in is not under the direct control of NHHSP staff, the office and cabinet are kept locked. The file server is behind a locked office door in a locked server cabinet. Backup tapes are stored in a locked, fireproof floor safe, and a secure, confidential off-site vault.
Records are retained and disposed of as follows:
• Files concerning participants who complete their obligations or whose obligations are waived, cancelled, or terminated are transferred to the Washington National Records Center in Suitland, Maryland and are destroyed 6 years after final payment, under disposition schedule HSA B-351 3. 1.
• HRSA has digitized and uploaded paper files concerning active participants in BHW scholarship and loan repayment programs into BMISS. The paper files are stored at the Washington National Records Center and are destroyed 15 years after closeout, under disposition schedule N1-512-92-01, item 25P 1 and 2.
• Unfunded or withdrawn applicant records are destroyed 6 months after the close of each fiscal year application period, under disposition schedule N1-512-92-01, item 25P 1.
• Currently, all records migrated to BMISS or created in BMISS are retained indefinitely, pending NARA's approval of a revised schedule.
The System Manager for the system of records is the following Policy-Coordinating Official:
Director, Division of Policy and Shortage Designation, Bureau of Health Workforce (BHW), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11W-42, Rockville, MD 20857.
Points of contact for specific programs/activities:
• NHSC SP and NHSC LRP Applications/Awards; Participant Placement/Assignment; Ready Responders: Director, Division of the National Health Service Corps, BHW, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 8C-26, Rockville, MD 20857.
• NURSE Corps LRP (formerly NELRP), NURSE Corps SP (formerly NSP), and FLRP Applications/Awards; Participant Placement/Assignment: Director, Division of Health Careers and Financial Support, BHW, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 9-105, Rockville, MD 20857.
• NHSC SP, NHSC LRP, S2S, NURSE Corps LRP (formerly NELRP), NURSE Corps SP (formerly NSP), and FLRP Participants' service from matching through service completion: Director, Division of Participant Support and Compliance, BHW, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 15W-50, Rockville, MD 20857.
• Suspension/Waiver/Default Determination for all BHW Programs: Chief, Legal and Compliance Branch, BHW, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 8-73, Rockville, MD 20857.
• NHHSP: Administrator, Papa Ola Lokahi, 894 Queen St., # 706, Honolulu, HI 96813.
• SEARCH and Ambassadors: Director, Division of External Affairs, BHW, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 7-100, Rockville, MD 20857.
To find out if the system contains records about you, contact the Policy-Coordinating Official, Director, Division of Policy and Shortage Designation, Bureau of Health Workforce (BHW), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11W-42, Rockville, MD 20857 who will refer you to the appropriate Point of Contact for the program/activity.
Same as notification procedure. Requesters may also ask for an accounting of disclosures that have been made of their records, if any.
Same as notification procedure. Contact the Policy-Coordinating Official; specify the information being contested, the corrective action sought, and the reasons for requesting the correction, along with supporting information to show how the record is inaccurate, incomplete, untimely, or irrelevant.
Records are obtained directly from the subject individuals, or from the following sources: educational institutions; internship and/or residency training programs; employers; NHSC-approved service sites; critical shortage facilities; schools of nursing; lending institutions and loan servicing agencies; health professional associations; National Practitioner Data Bank; System for Awards Management (formerly Excluded Parties List System); HHS Office of Inspector General Web site listing of individuals excluded from Medicare, Medicaid, and all other federal health care programs; HHS database of Health Professional Shortage Areas; HHS grantees and contractors/subcontractors; consumer reporting agencies/credit bureaus; other federal agencies, including but not limited to the Department of the Treasury, IRS, and the U.S. Postal Service; state health professions licensing boards and/or the Federation of State Medical Boards or a similar non-government entity; and third parties who provide references or other information concerning the subject individual.
None.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case:
ORI found that Respondent intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly engaged in research misconduct by falsifying and/or fabricating data that were included in five (5) publications and three (3) grant applications submitted to NINR, NIH:
ORI found that Respondent falsified and/or fabricated data by falsely reporting the results of Western blot experiments that examined neuroinflammation, amyloidogenesis, and/or cognitive impairment in a rat model of cerebral ischemia. Specifically, Respondent duplicated, reused, and falsely relabeled Western blot gel images and claimed they represented different experiments in:
As a result of this Agreement, Respondent will request that the following publications be retracted:
Dr. Briones has entered into a Voluntary Exclusion Agreement (Agreement) and has voluntarily agreed for a period of three (3) years, beginning on March 12, 2015:
(1) to exclude herself from any contracting or subcontracting with any agency of the United States Government and from eligibility for or involvement in nonprocurement programs of the United States Government referred to as “covered transactions” pursuant to HHS' Implementation (2 CFR part 376
(2) to exclude herself voluntarily from serving in any advisory capacity to the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant; and
(3) to request that the following publications be retracted:
Acting Director, Office of Research Integrity, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8200.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case:
ORI found that Respondent engaged in research misconduct by falsifying and fabricating data for specific protein expressions in human-induced neuronal (hiN) cells derived skin fibroblasts of Alzheimer's disease patients and unaffected individuals in seventy-four (74) panels included in figures in the following two (2) publications and one (1) unpublished manuscript:
•
•
• “Human induced neuron models of APOE4-associated Alzheimer's disease display altered APP endocytosis and processing.” Unpublished manuscript.
ORI found that Respondent engaged in research misconduct by knowingly and intentionally fabricating and falsifying research in seventy-four (74)
Dr. Fujita has entered into a Voluntary Exclusion Agreement (Agreement) and has voluntarily agreed for a period of three (3) years, beginning on March 18, 2015:
(1) to exclude himself from any contracting or subcontracting with any agency of the United States Government and from eligibility for or involvement in nonprocurement programs of the United States Government referred to as “covered transactions” pursuant to HHS' Implementation (2 CFR part 376
(2) to exclude himself voluntarily from serving in any advisory capacity to the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant.
Acting Director, Office of Research Integrity, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8200.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is hereby giving notice that the National Advisory Committee on Children and Disasters (NACCD) will be holding a meeting via teleconference. The meeting is open to the public.
The April 30, 2015, NACCD meeting is scheduled from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. EST. The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate. Please check the NACCD Web site, located at
To attend the meeting via teleconference, call toll-free: 1-888-324-4311, international dial-in: 1-517-308-9181. The pass-code is: 4818002. Please call 15 minutes prior to the beginning of the conference call to facilitate attendance. Pre-registration is required for public attendance. Individuals who wish to attend the meeting should submit an inquiry via the NACCD Contact Form located at
Please submit an inquiry via the NACCD Contact Form located at
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), and section 2811A of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 300hh-10a), as added by section 103 of the Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113-5), the HHS Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, established the National Advisory Committee on Children and Disasters (NACCD). The purpose of the NACCD is to provide advice and consultation to the HHS Secretary with respect to the medical and public health needs of children in relation to disasters. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) provides management and administrative oversight to support the activities of the NACCD.
Indian Health Service, HHS.
Notice.
Notice is given that the Director of the Indian Health Service (IHS), under the authority of sections 321(a) and 322(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 248 and 249(b)), Public Law 83-568 (42 U.S.C. 2001(a)), and the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1601
Established Medicare rates for freestanding Ambulatory Surgery Centers.
Consistent with previous annual rate revisions, the Calendar Year 2015 rates will be effective for services provided on/or after January 1, 2015 to the extent consistent with payment authorities including the applicable Medicaid State plan.
The
Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 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
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments or request more information on the proposed project contact: NIMH Project Clearance Liaison, Science Policy and Evaluation Branch, OSPPC, NIMH, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, MSC 9667, Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892, or call 301-443-4335 or Email your request, including your address to:
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 38.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, regarding the opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Office of Disease Prevention (ODP) 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 to address 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) The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 1,040.
Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 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
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,
Comment 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, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Dr. Pothur Srinivas, Project Officer/ICD Contact, Two Rockledge Center, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 10188, MSC 10193, Bethesda, MD 20892, or call non-toll-free number (301)-435-0550, or Email your request to:
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 48.
In accordance with title 41 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, section 102-3.65(a), notice is hereby given that the Charter for the Frederick National Advisory Committee to the National Cancer Institute was renewed for an additional two-year period on March 30, 2015.
It is determined that the Frederick National Advisory Committee to the National Cancer Institute, is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health by law, and that these duties can best be performed through the advice and counsel of this group.
Inquiries may be directed to Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 1000, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (Mail code 4875), Telephone (301) 496-2123, or
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of availability.
The Coast Guard announces the availability of an updated policy letter entitled “Distant Water Tuna Fleet (DWTF) Vessels Manning Exemption Guidance.” The letter provides revised guidance on procedures for requesting and issuing a Manning Exemption Letter as a result of recent statutory changes that affected the previous 2013 guidance.
The revised policy guidance is effective May 1, 2015.
For information about this document call or email Mr. Jack Kemerer, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1249, email
The revised policy letter is available at
The DWTF consists of U.S. commercial purse seine fishing vessels, under masters who are U.S. citizens, that operate in the tuna fisheries of the Western Pacific Ocean far from U.S. territories other than Guam and American Samoa. Because of the difficulty of hiring U.S. merchant mariners (other than vessel masters) to serve in this fleet, the law authorizes foreign citizens to hold required navigation and engineering positions, if they are properly licensed by their countries, and subject to certain restrictions and limitations, and if qualified U.S. citizens are not readily available. Vessels that comply with these conditions may apply for and receive a Coast Guard Manning Exemption Letter attesting to compliance. The letter may expedite a vessel boarding or examination process.
This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
60-Day Notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on one currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0029, abstracted below that we will submit to OMB for renewal in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. This collection requires individuals to successfully complete a security threat assessment (1) to operate an aircraft to or from the three Maryland airports (Maryland Three Airports) that are located within the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ), or (2) to serve as an airport security coordinator at one of these three airports.
Send your comments by June 8, 2015.
Comments may be emailed to
Christina A. Walsh at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227-2062.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement continues to be necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Part 1562 allows an individual who is approved by TSA to operate an aircraft to or from one of the Maryland Three Airports or to serve as an airport security coordinator at one of these three airports. In order to be approved, a pilot or airport security coordinator applicant is required to successfully complete a security threat assessment. As part of this threat assessment, the applicant must undergo a criminal history records check and a check of Government terrorist watch lists and other databases to determine whether the individual poses, or is suspected of posing, a threat to transportation or national security. An applicant will not receive TSA's approval under this analysis if TSA determines or suspects them of being a threat to national or transportation security. Applicants can be fingerprinted at the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport's (DCA) badging office and any participating airport badging office or law enforcement office located nearby to the applicant's residence or place of work. Applicants must present the following information to TSA, using TSA Form 418, as part of the application process: full name, Social Security number, date of birth, address, phone numbers, current and valid airman certificate or current and valid student pilot certificate, current medical certificate, email address, emergency contact number, a list of the make, model, and FAA aircraft registration number for each aircraft the pilot intends to operate at Maryland Three Airports, one form of Government-issued picture ID, and fingerprints.
Although not required by the rule, TSA asks applicants to provide an email address and contact phone number to facilitate immediate communication that might be necessary when operating in the FRZ or helpful during the application process. TSA receives approximately 312 applications annually, and estimates applicants spend approximately 90 minutes to submit the information to TSA, which is a total annual burden of 28,080 hours.
Office of the Secretary, HUD.
Notice of order of succession for the Office of Public and Indian Housing.
In this notice, the Secretary designates the order of succession for the Office of Public and Indian Housing. This order of succession revokes and supersedes all prior orders of succession for the Office of Public and Indian Housing, including the Order of Succession published on August 4, 2011.
Effective upon date of signature.
Linda Bronsdon, Office of Policy, Program and Legislative Initiatives, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 490 L'Enfant Plaza, Washington, DC 20024, email address
The Secretary is issuing this order of succession of officials to perform the duties and functions of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing when the Assistant Secretary is not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of the office. This publication revokes and supersedes all prior orders of succession for the Office of Public and Indian Housing, including the order of succession published on August 4, 2011 at 76 FR 47227.
During any period when the Assistant Secretary is not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary of PIH, the following officials within PIH are hereby designated to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary for PIH including the authority to waive regulations:
(1) Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing;
(2) General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing;
(3) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Housing and Voucher Programs;
(4) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Housing Investments;
(5) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Field Operations;
(6) Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Real Estate Assessment Center;
(7) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Office of Native American Programs;
(8) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives.
These officials shall perform the functions and duties of the office in the order specified herein, and no official
This order of succession supersedes all prior orders of succession for the Office of Public and Indian Housing, including the order of succession published on August 4, 2011 at 76 FR 47227.
Section 7(d), Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
Office of the Secretary, HUD.
Notice of delegation of authority.
Section 7(d) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Act, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to delegate functions, powers and duties as the Secretary deems necessary. In this delegation of authority, the Secretary delegates authority to the Assistant Secretary, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) and authorizes the Assistant Secretary, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and the General Deputy Assistant Secretary to redelegate authority for the administration of certain PIH programs. This delegation revokes and supersedes all prior delegations of authority, including the delegation published on August 4, 2011.
Effective upon date of signature.
Linda Bronsdon, AICP, Program Analyst, Office of Policy, Program and Legislative Initiatives, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 490 L'Enfant Plaza, Suite 2206, Washington, DC 20024, email address
Previous delegations of authority from the Secretary of HUD to the Assistant Secretary, and General Deputy Assistant Secretary for PIH, including the delegation published on August 4, 2011 (76 FR 47224), are hereby revoked and superseded by this delegation of authority.
The Secretary hereby delegates to the Assistant Secretary, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for PIH the authority and responsibility to administer the following programs:
1. Programs under the jurisdiction of the Secretary pursuant to the authority transferred from the Public Housing Administration under section 5(a) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3534) as amended;
2. Each program of the Department authorized pursuant to the United States Housing Act of 1937 (1937 Act)(42 U.S.C. 1437
3. PIH programs for which assistance is provided for or on behalf of public housing agencies (PHAs), public housing residents or other low-income households; and
4. PIH programs for which assistance is provided for or on behalf of Native Americans, Indian Tribes, Alaska Native Villages, Native Hawaiians, tribal entities, tribally designated housing entities, or tribal housing resident organizations. This includes, but is not limited to: Programs authorized pursuant to the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1966 (NAHASDA) (25 U.S.C. 4101
Only the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing is delegated the authority to issue a final regulation or a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). The authority delegated herein to the Assistant Secretary, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and the General Deputy Assistant Secretary includes the authority to waive regulations and statutes, but for the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and the General Deputy Assistant Secretary the authority to waive statutes is limited in Section B below.
Authority delegated under section A does not include the power to sue or be sued. Also, the authority delegated under section A to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and General Deputy Assistant Secretary does not include the authority to waive the following statutes:
1. Waivers of obligation and expenditure deadlines for capital funds under 42 U.S.C. 1437g(j)(2);
2. Waivers of Moving to Work demonstration authority under Section 204 of the Omnibus Consolidated Recessions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134);
3. Waivers of requirements for grants to Department of Hawaiian Homelands where compliance is impossible due to circumstances beyond the control of grantees under 25 U.S.C. 4222.
In accordance with a written redelegation of authority, the Assistant Secretary, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for PIH may further redelegate specific authority. Redelegated authority to PIH Deputy Assistant Secretaries or other ranking PIH program officials does not supersede the authority of the Assistant Secretary as designee of the Secretary. The three existing redelegations of authority for PIH published on August 4, 2011 at 76 FR 47228, 76 FR 47229 and 76 FR 47231 remain in effect.
The authority to redelegate does not include any power or authority under law specifically required of the
1. The authority to issue regulations;
2. The authority to issue notices to clarify regulations;
3. The authority to issue notices of funding availability (NOFAs), handbooks, notices and other HUD policy directives;
4. The authority to impose remedies for substantial noncompliance with the requirements of NAHASDA (25 U.S.C. 4101
5. The authority to declare a failure to comply with the regulations governing Community Development Block Grants for Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages; and
6. The authority delegated herein to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary to waive regulations and statutes with the exception of those statutes listed in Section B.
The previous delegations of authority from the Secretary for HUD to the Assistant Secretary for PIH are hereby revoked and superseded by this delegation of authority, including the previous delegation of authority for PIH published on August 4, 2011 (76 FR 47224).
This consolidated delegation of authority is conclusive evidence of the authority of the Assistant Secretary for PIH, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and the General Deputy Assistant Secretary or those with redelegated authority, to represent the Secretary and to execute, in the name of the Secretary, any instrument or document relinquishing or transferring any right, title or interest of the Department in real or personal property. The Secretary may revoke the authority authorized herein, in whole or in part, at any time.
The General Counsel shall consult and advise the Assistant Secretary for PIH, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and the General Deputy Assistant Secretary as required and when requested and to enter into such protocols as administratively agreed to by the General Counsel and the Assistant Secretary for PIH, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary or the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for PIH. This consolidated delegation of authority is to be exercised consistently with the delegation of the Secretary to the General Counsel.
Section 7(d) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 3535(d)).
In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Partial Consent Decree in
The proposed Partial Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the United States, on behalf of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, against Juan Carlos Sainz, Siramad Trujillo-Sainz, Victor Ortega, Narinedat Roy, Sainz Homes LLC, Sion Home's Builders LLC and Sion Homes LLC, to obtain injunctive relief and civil penalties for violations of Sections 301 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311 and 1344. The proposed Partial Consent Decree resolves these allegations against Juan Carlos Sainz, Siramad Trujillo-Sainz, and Sainz Homes LLC by requiring these Defendants to mitigate the losses of ecological functions resulting from the violation and directing them to pay a civil penalty.
The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to this proposed Partial Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Andrew J. Doyle, Senior Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental Defense Section, Post Office Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044 and refer to
The proposed Partial Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, FL 33128. In addition, the proposed Partial Consent Decree may be examined electronically at
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Labor Market Information Cooperative Agreement,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before May 7, 2015.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-BLS, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-6881 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for revisions to the Labor Market Information (LMI) Cooperative Agreement information collection. The LMI Cooperative Agreement includes all information needed by a State Workforce Agency to apply for funds to assist it in operating one or more of the four BLS LMI programs and to report on the status of the obligation and expenditure of any such funds as well as to close out the Cooperative Agreement. This information collection has been classified as a revision, because of updates to the Cooperative Agreement application instructions and materials. BLS Authorizing Statute sections 1 and 2, Wagner-Peyser Act as Amended section 14, and Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977 section 6 authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Standard on Commercial Diving Operations (29 CFR part 1910, subpart T).
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) June 8, 2015.
Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The following provisions of the Commercial Diving Operations Standards (the “Standards”) contain paperwork requirements: §§ 1910.401(b); 1910.410(a)(3) and (a)(4); 1910.420(a) and (b); 1910.421(b), (f), and (h); 1910.422(e); 1910.423(b)(1)(ii) through (b)(2), (d), and (e); 1910.430(a), (b)(4), (c)(1)(i), (c)(3)(i), (f)(3)(ii), and (g)(2); and 1910.440(a)(2) and (b). These provisions require that employers: Notify OSHA if they deviate from the operational requirements of the Standards; train every diver in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and first aid, and mixed-gas divers (and those who control exposure of divers to mixed-gas breathing conditions) in diving-related physics and physiology; develop and make available to employees a safe practices manual; maintain a list of emergency telephone or call numbers at the diving location; brief dive team members on diving-related tasks, safety procedures, hazards, and revisions to operating procedures; display a code flag “A” if diving from a surface other than a vessel in navigable waters; develop and maintain a depth-time profile for each dive; and instruct divers on reporting diving-related illnesses and injuries, and the procedures specified for detecting, treating, and preventing these problems.
The Standards also mandate that employers: Record and maintain diving logs that contain required information; investigate and provide a written evaluation of, any incident involving decompression sickness; mark diving umbilicals as required; inspect, test, and calibrate specified diving equipment; record modifications, repairs, tests, calibrations, and maintenance performed on any diving equipment; make a record of diving-related injuries and illnesses that result in a diver remaining in a hospital for over 24 hours; and create, and disclose to specified parties on request, the written records required by the Standard, and maintain these records for specified periods.
The Standards' paperwork requirements allow employers to deviate from established diving practices and tailor diving operations to unusually hazardous diving conditions, and to analyze diving records (including hospitalization and treatment records) for information they can use to improve diving operations. These requirements are also a direct and efficient means for employers to inform dive-team members about diving-related hazards, procedures to use in avoiding and controlling these hazards, and recognizing and treating diving-related illnesses and injuries. Additionally, employers can review equipment records to ensure that employees performed the required actions, and that the equipment is in safe working order.
Disclosing these records to employees and their designated representatives permits them to identify operational and equipment conditions that may contribute to diving accidents or diving-related medical conditions.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting an adjustment decrease of 81 burden hours from 205,096 to 205,015 hours. The Agency is no longer calculating burden hours or costs for employers who provide information to the compliance officers during an OSHA inspection; inspections are outside the scope of PRA-95. The Agency will summarize any comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627). Comments and submissions are posted without change at
All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Asbestos in Construction Standard (29 CFR 1926.1101).
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by June 8, 2015.
Theda Kenney, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The standard protects workers from adverse health effects from occupational exposure to asbestos, including lung cancer, mesothelioma, asbestosis (an emphysema-like condition) and gastrointestinal cancer. The standard requires employers to monitor worker exposure, to provide medical surveillance, and maintain accurate records of worker exposure to asbestos. These records will be used by employers and workers and the Government to ensure that workers are not harmed by exposure to asbestos in the workplace.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
The Agency is requesting an adjustment decrease of 1,077,068 burden hours (from 4,929,794 to 3,852,726 hours) primarily due to the Agency's estimates, based on updated data, that the number of establishments and workers affected by the Standard have decreased. The operation and maintenance cost increased from $28,816,390 to $36,157,231 due to the estimated increase in the cost of exposure monitoring samples and medical examinations.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available from the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet to locate docket submissions.
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
The Legal Services Corporation's Board of Directors and its six committees will meet April 12-14, 2015. On Sunday, April 12, the first meeting will commence at 2 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST), with the meeting thereafter commencing promptly upon adjournment of the immediately preceding meeting. On Monday, April 13, the first meeting will commence at 9 a.m., EST, with the next meeting commencing at 10:15 a.m., EST, and the meeting thereafter commencing promptly upon adjournment of the immediately preceding meeting. On Tuesday, April 14, the first meeting will commence at 9 a.m., EST, and it will be followed by the closed session meeting of the Board of Directors which will commence promptly upon adjournment of the first meeting.
3333 K Street NW., 3rd. Floor, F. William McCalpin Conference Center, Washington, DC 20007.
Unless otherwise noted herein, the Board and all committee meetings will be open to public observation. Members of the public who are unable to attend in person but wish to listen to the public proceedings may do so by following the telephone call-in directions provided below.
• Call toll-free number: 1-866-451-4981;
• When prompted, enter the following numeric pass code: 5907707348;
• When connected to the call, please immediately “MUTE” your telephone.
Members of the public are asked to keep their telephones muted to eliminate background noises. To avoid disrupting the meeting, please refrain from placing the call on hold if doing so will trigger recorded music or other sound. From time to time, the presiding Chair may solicit comments from the public.
Open, except as noted below.
Board of Directors—Open, except that, upon a vote of the Board of Directors, a portion of the meeting may be closed to the public to hear briefings by management and LSC's Inspector General, and to consider and act on the
**Any portion of the closed session consisting solely of briefings does not fall within the Sunshine Act's definition of the term “meeting” and, therefore, the requirements of the Sunshine Act do not apply to such portion of the closed session. 5 U.S.C. 552b(a)(2) and (b).
Institutional Advancement Committee—Open, except that, upon a vote of the Board of Directors, the meeting may be closed to the public to consider and act on a recommendation of new prospective donors and of prospective members of the Leaders Council to the Board of Directors.**
Audit Committee—Open, except that the meeting may be closed to the public to hear briefings on the following matters: The Office of Compliance and Enforcement's active enforcement matter(s) and the Office of Information Technology audit.**
Governance and Performance Review Committee—Open, except that the meeting may be closed to the public to consider and act on a recommendation of new prospective funders.**
A verbatim written transcript will be made of the closed sessions of the Board, Institutional Advancement Committee, Audit Committee and Governance and Performance Review Committee meetings. The transcript of any portions of the closed sessions falling within the relevant provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (10), will not be available for public inspection. A copy of the General Counsel's Certification that, in his opinion, the closing is authorized by law will be available upon request.
Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President & General Counsel, at (202) 295-1500. Questions may be sent by electronic mail to
Non-confidential meeting materials will be made available in electronic format at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting on the LSC Web site, at
LSC complies with the American's with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. Upon request, meeting notices and materials will be made available in alternative formats to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Individuals who need other accommodations due to disability in order to attend the meeting in person or telephonically should contact Katherine Ward, at (202) 295-1500 or
The National Science Board's Executive Committee, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:
Friday, April 10, 2015 at 3:30 p.m. EDT.
(1) Chairman's opening remarks; and (2) Discussion of agenda for the May 2015 meetings of the National Science Board.
Open
This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National Science Board Office, National Science Foundation, 4201Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. A public listening line will be available. Members of the public must contact the Board Office (call 703-292-7000 or send an email message to
Please refer to the National Science Board Web site
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Order imposing civil monetary penalty; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an Order imposing civil monetary penalty of $3,500 to ATC Group Services, Inc., for the failure to control a portable gauge. The Order is being imposed after receipt and review of the Licensee's reply to a Severity Level III Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty Issued on November 19, 2014.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0083 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by the following methods:
•
•
•
Patricia Lougheed, Region III, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Lisle, Illinois 60532; telephone: 630 810-4376, email:
The text of the Order is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ATC Group Services, Inc. (Licensee) is the holder of Materials License No. 13-17732-01, issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on December 30, 1977, and last amended January 29, 2014 (Amendment 31). The license authorizes the Licensee to use and store moisture/density gauges containing radioactive material in accordance with the conditions specified therein.
An inspection of the Licensee's activities was conducted on December 4, 2013, and an Office of Investigations investigation was completed August 12, 2014. The results of this inspection and investigation indicated that the Licensee had not conducted its activities in full compliance with NRC requirements. A written Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) was served upon the Licensee by letter dated November 19, 2014. The Notice states the nature of the violation, the provision of the NRC's requirements that the Licensee violated, and the amount of the civil penalty proposed for the violation.
The Licensee responded to the Notice in a letter dated December 14, 2014. In its response, the Licensee disagreed with the NRC assessment of the safety significance of the violation. Specifically, the Licensee requested that the violation be deemed a Severity Level IV violation.
After consideration of the Licensee's response and the statements of fact, explanation, and argument for mitigation contained therein, the NRC staff has determined that, as set forth in the Appendix to this Order, the violation occurred as stated and that the penalty proposed for the violation designated in the Notice should be imposed.
In view of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205,
The Licensee pays a civil penalty in the amount of $3,500 within 30 days of the date of this Order, in accordance with NUREG/BR-0254. In addition, at the time payment is made, the licensee shall submit a statement indicating when and by what method payment was made, to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the Licensee must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order within 30 days of its issuance. In addition, the Licensee and any other person adversely affected by this Order may request a hearing on this Order within 30 days of its issuance. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to answer or request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be directed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and include a statement of good cause for the extension.
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 E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended by 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012), codified in pertinent part at 10 CFR part 2, subpart C. 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 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 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 Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), users will be required to install a web browser plug-in from the NRC 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 through the EIE. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the agency'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 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 NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is available to the public at
If a person other than the Licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d) and (f).
If a hearing is requested by the Licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. In the absence of any request for a hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 30 days from the date this Order is issued without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section IV shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. If payment has not been made by the time specified above, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General for collection. [light face signature below]
Dated this 27th day of March, 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Call for Nominations.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is advertising for nominations for the position of Nuclear Pharmacist on the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI). Nominees should be a currently practicing nuclear pharmacist.
Nominations are due on or before June 8, 2015.
Submit an electronic copy of resume or curriculum vitae to Ms. Sophie Holiday,
Ms. Sophie Holiday, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards; telephone (404) 997-4691; email:
The ACMUI Nuclear Pharmacist provides advice on issues associated with the regulation of nuclear pharmacy applications of byproduct material. This advice includes providing input on NRC proposed rules and guidance, providing recommendations on the training and experience requirements for Authorized Nuclear Pharmacists, identifying medical events associated with these uses, evaluating non-routine uses of byproduct material, bringing key issues in the nuclear pharmacy community to the attention of NRC staff, as they relate to radiopharmaceuticals, radiation safety and NRC medical-use policy.
ACMUI members are selected based on their educational background, certification(s), work experience, involvement and/or leadership in professional society activities, and other information obtained in letters or during the selection process.
ACMUI members possess the medical and technical skills needed to address evolving issues. The current membership is comprised of the following professionals: (a) Nuclear medicine physician; (b) nuclear cardiologist; (c) two radiation oncologists; (d) diagnostic radiologist; (e) therapy medical physicist; (f) nuclear medicine physicist; (g) nuclear pharmacist; (h) health care administrator; (i) radiation safety officer; (j) patients' rights advocate; (k) Food and Drug Administration representative; and (l) Agreement State representative.
NRC is inviting nominations for the Nuclear Pharmacist to the ACMUI. The term of the individual currently occupying this position will end March 29, 2016. Committee members currently serve a four-year term and may be considered for reappointment to an additional term.
Nominees must be U.S. citizens and be able to devote approximately 160 hours per year to Committee business. Members who are not Federal employees are compensated for their service. In addition, members are reimbursed for travel (including per-diem in lieu of subsistence) and are reimbursed secretarial and correspondence expenses. Full-time Federal employees are reimbursed travel expenses only.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of meeting.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will convene a teleconference meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI) on June 16, 2015, to discuss the ACMUI Radioactive Seed Localization subcommittee report and to hear a presentation from Spectrum Pharmaceuticals regarding the training and experience requirements for alpha and beta emitters. Meeting information, including a copy of the agenda and handouts, will be available at
The teleconference meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 16, 2015, 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
Ms. Sophie Holiday, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards; telephone: (404) 997-4691, email:
Dr. Bruce Thomadsen, ACMUI Chairman, will preside over the meeting. Dr. Thomadsen will conduct the meeting in a manner that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. The following procedures apply to public participation in the meeting:
1. Persons who wish to provide a written statement should submit an electronic copy to Ms. Holiday at the contact information listed above. All submittals must be received by June 11, 2015, three business days prior to the meeting, and must pertain to the topic on the agenda for the meeting.
2. Questions and comments from members of the public will be permitted during the meetings, at the discretion of the Chairman.
3. The draft transcript and meeting summary will be available on ACMUI's Web site
This meeting will be held in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (primarily Section 161a); the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App); and the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment request; opportunity to comment, request a
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is considering approval of three amendment requests. The amendment requests are for Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1; Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3. The NRC proposes to determine that each amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, each amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI).
Comments must be filed by May 7, 2015. A request for a hearing must be filed by June 8, 2015. Any potential party as defined in § 2.4 of Title 10 of the
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
Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2242, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0058 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:
•
•
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0058, facility name, unit number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This notice includes notices of amendments containing SUNSI.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish a notice of issuance in the
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 the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (First Floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
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 which 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.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
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 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
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).
For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (First Floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment extends the completion date for milestone 8 of the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) implementation schedule. Revising the full implementation date for the CSP does not involve modifications to any safety-related structures, systems, or components (SSCs). The implementation schedule provides a timeline for fully implementing the CSP. The CSP describes how the requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 are to be implemented to identify, evaluate, and mitigate cyber attacks up to and including the design basis cyber attack threat; thereby achieving high assurance that the facility's digital computer and communications systems and networks are protected from cyber attacks. The revision of the CSP Implementation Schedule will not alter previously evaluated design basis accident analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators, modify the function of the plant safety-related SSCs, or affect how any plant safety-related SSCs are operated, maintained, tested, or inspected.
As the proposed change does not directly impact SSCs, and milestones 1 through 7 provide significant protection against cyber attacks, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not introduce a new mode of plant operation or involve a physical modification to the plant. New equipment is not installed with the proposed
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not affect the performance of any structures, systems or components as described in the design basis analyses. The change to milestone 8 of the cyber security implementation plan is administrative in nature.
The proposed change does not introduce a new mode of plant operation or involve a physical modification to the plant. The proposed amendment does not introduce changes to limits established in the accident analysis. Since there is no impact to any SSCs, or any maintenance or operational practice, there is also no reduction in any margin of safety.
As the proposed change does not directly impact SSCs, and milestones 1 through 7 provide significant protection against cyber attacks, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the DCPP CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components (SSCs) relied upon to mitigate the consequences of a postulated accident, and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the DCPP CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the SSCs relied upon to mitigate the consequences of a postulated accident, and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components (SSCs) relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents, and has no impact on the
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the SONGS Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This proposed change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the SSCs relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents, and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions for operation limiting safety system settings, and safety limits specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to the SONGS Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. Since the proposed change is administrative in nature, there is no change to these established safety margins. Therefore the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing SUNSI.
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request such access. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after the requestor is granted access to that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is granted access to the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline. This provision does not extend the time for
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing and need for access, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) officer if that officer has been designated to rule on information access issues.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311.
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Gallagher, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session, and determined that no earlier notice thereof was possible.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
an adjudicatory matter; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 3301(h) to introduce the Market Hours Immediate or Cancel Time in Force for use on the NASDAQ OMX PSX System and to modify the processing of Good-til-market close-designated orders.
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 expand the number of Time in Force designations currently available for use in the PHLX NASDAQ OMX PSX System (“PSX System” or “PSX”) by adopting a Market Hours Immediate or Cancel (“Market Hours IOC” or “MIOC”) Time in Force. Time in Force is a characteristic of an order that limits the period of time that PSX System will hold an order for potential execution. Currently the Exchange offers the following six Times in Force for use in PSX: (1) System Hours Immediate or Cancel; (2) System Hours Day; (3) System Hours Good-till-Cancelled; (4) System Hours Expire Time; (5) Market Hours GTC; and (6) Good-til-market close.
The Exchange notes that the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ”) currently has a MIOC Time in Force, which was adopted in 2006.
The Exchange is also proposing to modify the processing of orders designated as Good-til-market close (“GTMC”).
PHLX believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The proposed changes to the processing of GTMC-designated orders further these objectives because the changes simplify processing of such orders when entered after the close of Regular Market Hours. Rather than converting GTMC-designated orders to an order with a different time-in-force if entered after the market close, the Exchange will no longer accept them after 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, which is consistent with a market participant's intent to execute during the period from 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. To the extent a member firm would like to participate in post-market hours trading, it may enter a new order eligible to participate in post-market trading. Moreover, simplifying the processing of GTMC-designated orders will remove complication in the handling of such orders, thereby further improving the operation of the market.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposal will enhance PHLX's competitiveness by providing its market participants with an additional option to limit when their orders may be executed. As discussed above, the MIOC Time in Force is available on NASDAQ, and providing it on PSX will allow PHLX to compete with NASDAQ and any other market venue that provides similar Time in Force functionality. This may, in turn, increase the extent of liquidity available on PSX and increase its ability to compete with other execution venues to attract orders that are seeking immediate execution during Regular Market Hours. The Exchange further believes that the introduction of the MIOC Time in Force will not impair in any manner the ability of market participants or other execution venues to compete. The proposed changes to GTMC Time in Force are designed to promote consistency and stability in the closing process and in the handling of orders after Regular Market Hours has [sic] ended. Such changes do not place a burden on competition between market participants as the changes are applied consistently to all PSX market participants. Moreover, the proposed changes may foster competition among exchanges and other markets, to the extent they make PSX a more attractive venue to market participants.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on Thursday, April 9, 2015, in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC. The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will open at 9 a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at
On March 18, 2015, the Commission issued notice of the Committee meeting (Release No. 33-9739), indicating that the meeting is open to the public (except during portions of the meeting reserved for meetings of the Committee's subcommittees), and inviting the public to submit written comments to the Committee. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a quorum of the Commission may attend the meeting.
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.
For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l
Rule 17f-2 (17 CFR 270.17f-2), entitled “Custody of Investments by Registered Management Investment Company,” was adopted in 1940 under section 17(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-17(f)) (the “Act”), and was last amended
Rule 17f-2's requirement that directors designate access persons is intended to ensure that directors evaluate the trustworthiness of insiders who handle fund assets. The requirements that access persons act jointly in handling fund assets, prepare a written notation of each transaction, and transmit the notation to another designated person are intended to reduce the risk of misappropriation of fund assets by access persons, and to ensure that adequate records are prepared, reviewed by a responsible third person, and available for examination by the Commission. The requirement that auditors verify fund assets without notice twice each year is intended to provide an additional deterrent to the misappropriation of fund assets and to detect any irregularities.
The Commission staff estimates that each fund makes 974 responses and spends an average of 252 hours annually in complying with the rule's requirements.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. Complying with the collections of information required by rule 17f-2 is mandatory for those funds that maintain custody of their own assets. Responses will not be kept confidential. 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 control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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 in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
ISE Gemini proposes to amend Rule 706 to authorize the Exchange to share any Member-designated risk settings in the trading system with the Clearing Member that clears transactions on behalf of the Member. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization 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 Rule 706 to authorize the Exchange to share any Member-designated risk settings in the trading system with the Clearing Member that clears transactions on behalf of the Member. Rule 706 states that “[u]nless otherwise provided in the Rules, no one but a Member or a person associated with a Member shall effect any Exchange Transactions.”
Each Member that transacts through a Clearing Member on the Exchange executes a Letter of Clearing Authorization, in the case of Electronic Access Members, or a Market Maker Letter of Guarantee, in the case of Primary Market Makers and Competitive Market Makers, wherein the Clearing Member “accepts financial responsibility for all Exchange Transactions made by the” Member on whose behalf the Clearing Member submits the letter of guarantee. The Exchange believes that because Clearing Members guarantee all transactions on behalf of a Member, and therefore, bear the risk associated with those transactions, it is appropriate for Clearing Members to have knowledge of what risk settings a Member may utilize within the trading system.
The Exchange notes that while not all Members are Clearing Members, all Members require a Clearing Member's consent to clear transactions on their behalf in order to conduct business on the Exchange. As the Clearing Member ultimately bears all the risk for a trade they clear on any Member's behalf, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to provide Clearing Members with information relating to the risk settings used by each Member whose transactions they are clearing. To the extent that a Clearing Member might reasonably require a Member to provide access to its risk settings as a prerequisite to continue to clear trades on the Member's behalf, the Exchange's proposal to share those risk settings directly reduces the administrative burden on Members and ensures that Clearing Members are receiving information that is up-to-date and conforms to the settings active in the trading system.
The Exchange further notes that any broker-dealer is free to become a Clearing Member of the Options Clearing Corporation (the “OCC”), which would enable that Member to avoid sharing risk settings with any third party, if they so choose. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act as it provides Clearing Members with additional risk-related information that may aid them in complying with the Act, notably Rule 15c3-5 and, as noted, Members that do not wish to share such settings with a Clearing Member can do so by become clearing members of the OCC.
The risk settings that would be shared pursuant to the proposed rule are currently codified in Rule 804. The risk settings are designed to mitigate the potential risks of multiple executions against a Member's trading interest that, in today's highly automated and electronic trading environment, can occur simultaneously across multiple series and multiple option classes. The proposed rule will allow the Exchange to share a Member's risk settings with the Clearing Member that guarantees the Member's transactions, and therefore has a financial interesting [sic] in understanding the risk tolerance of a Member.
Because the Letter of Clearing Authorization and the Market Maker Letter of Guarantee codifies relationships between a Member and the Clearing Member, the Exchange is on notice of which Clearing Members have relationships with which Members. The proposed rule change would simply provide the Exchange with authority to directly provide Clearing Members with information that may otherwise be available to such Clearing Members by virtue of their relationship with the respective Member.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by codifying that the Exchange can directly provide to Clearing Members that guarantee that Member's transactions on the Exchange the Member-designated risk settings in the trading system, which are designed to mitigate the potential risk of multiple executions against a Member's trading interest that, in today's highly automated and electronic trading environment, can occur simultaneously across multiple series and multiple option classes. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interests because it will permit Clearing Members with a financial interest in a Member's risk settings to better monitor and manage the potential risks assumed by Members with whom the Clearing Member has entered into a letter of guarantee, thereby providing Clearing Members with greater control and flexibility over setting their own risk tolerance and exposure.
The Exchange believes the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
The Exchange believes that the foregoing proposed rule change may take effect upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend section (a)(iv) of Rule 703, Financial Responsibility and Reporting, as described below.
The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
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 II.A., II.B., and II.C. below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to modernize the Exchange's rules regarding the termination of letters of guarantee provided by clearing member organizations which guarantee the financial responsibilities of non-clearing member organizations. The proposal would permit clearing member organizations to terminate letters of guarantee which guarantee the financial responsibilities of non-clearing member organizations on an intraday basis. The amendment would conform this aspect of Rule 703 to the Letter of Guarantee termination provisions of the NASDAQ Options Market (“NOM”) and NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (“BX”) rules.
Currently, Rule 703(a)(iv) provides that a clearing member guarantee remains in effect until the Exchange receives from the clearing member organization written notice of its intent to cancel its guarantee. It further provides that written notice of such cancellation received by the Exchange at least one-half hour before the normal opening of trading shall take effect on the day of receipt, except that written notice received less than one-half hour before the opening of trading shall take effect only on the opening of the business day following Exchange receipt. Consequently, a guaranteeing clearing member organization concerned about its guaranteed member organization's credit is unable to terminate its guarantee on an intraday basis.
The proposed amendment to Rule 703(a)(iv) would enable the guaranteeing clearing member organization to terminate the guarantee during the trading day, avoiding financial responsibility for trades that would otherwise have occurred during the rest of the day for which the guaranteeing member would, under the current rule, remain financially responsible. As stated above, the change would conform the Phlx rule to the NOM and BX rules which permit revocation of a Letter of Guarantee to take effect upon filing of a written notice of revocation, which permits termination to become effective without waiting until the next trading day. The Exchange will terminate the registered options trader's access to trading as soon as it processes the withdrawn guarantee. Clearing member organizations will therefore be able to react more quickly under the amended rule to any potential rapid deterioration in the guaranteed entity's condition.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed change would apply to all issuers of clearing member guarantees equally and because it would also apply equally to all guaranteed entities whose guarantees are revoked under Rule 703(a)(iv).
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2015-30 and should be submitted on or before April 28, 2015.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Hawaii (FEMA-4201-DR), dated 03/04/2015.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Hawaii, dated 03/04/2015, is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 09/04/2014 and continuing through 03/25/2015. All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
(OMB)
Or you may submit your comments online through
I. The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than June 8, 2015. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.
1. Statement of Claimant or Other Person—20 CFR 404.702 & 416.570—0960-0045. SSA uses Form SSA-795 in special situations where there is no authorized form or questionnaire, yet we require a signed statement from the applicant, claimant, or other persons who have knowledge of facts, in connection with claims for Social Security benefits or Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The information we request on the SSA-795 is of sufficient importance that we need both a signed statement and a penalty clause. SSA uses this information to process, in addition to claims for benefits, issues about continuing eligibility; ongoing benefit amounts; use of funds by a representative payee; fraud investigation; and a myriad of other program-related matters. The most typical respondents are applicants for Social Security, SSI, or recipients of these programs. However, respondents also include friends and relatives of the involved parties, coworkers, neighbors, or anyone else in a position to provide information pertinent to the issue(s).
Type of Request: Revision of an OMB-approved information collection.
2. Statement of Care and Responsibility for Beneficiary—20 CFR 404.2020, 404.2025, 408.620, 408.625, 416.620, 416.625—0960-0109. SSA uses the information from Form SSA-788 to verify payee applicants' statements of concern and to identify other potential payees. SSA is concerned with selecting the most qualified representative payee who will use Social Security benefits in the beneficiary's best interest. SSA considers factors such as the payee applicant's capacity to perform payee duties; awareness of the beneficiary's situation and needs; demonstration of past; and current concern for the beneficiary's well-being, etc. If the payee applicant does not have custody of the beneficiary, SSA will obtain information from the custodian for evaluation against information provided by the applicant. Respondents are individuals who have custody of the beneficiary in cases where someone else has filed to be the beneficiary's representative payee.
Type of Request: Revision of an OMB-approved information collection.
3. Request for Internet Services—Authentication; Automated Telephone Speech Technology—Knowledge-Based Authentication (RISA-KBA)—20 CFR 401.45—0960-0596. The Request for Internet Services and 800# Automated Telephone Services Knowledge-Based Authentication is one of the authentication methods SSA uses to allow individuals access to their personal information through our Internet and Automated Telephone Services. SSA asks individuals and third parties who seek personal information from SSA records, or who register to participate in SSA's online business services, to provide certain identifying information. As an extra measure of protection, SSA asks requestors who use the Internet and telephone services to provide additional identifying information unique to those services so SSA can authenticate their identities before releasing personal information. The respondents are current beneficiaries who are requesting personal information from SSA, as well as individuals and third parties who register for SSA's online business services.
Type of Request: Revision of an OMB-approved information collection.
4. Social Security Number Verification Services—20 CFR 401.45—0960-0660. Internal Revenue Service regulations require employers to provide wage and tax data to SSA using Form W-2 or its electronic equivalent. As part of this process, the employer must furnish the employee's name and Social Security number (SSN). In addition, the employee's name and SSN must match SSA's records for SSA to post earnings to the employee's earnings
Type of Request: Revision of an OMB-approved information collection.
II. SSA submitted the information collection below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding the information collection would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than May 7, 2015. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance package by writing to
The Promoting Readiness of Minors in SSI (PROMISE) demonstration pursues positive outcomes for children with disabilities who receive SSI and their families by reducing dependency on SSI. The Department of Education (ED) awarded six cooperative agreements to states to improve the provision and coordination of services and support for children with disabilities who receive SSI and their families to achieve improved education and employment outcomes. ED awarded PROMISE funds to five single-state projects, and to one six-state consortium.
Under PROMISE, targeted outcomes for youth include an enhanced sense of self-determination; achievement of secondary and post-secondary educational credentials; an attainment of early work experiences culminating with competitive employment in an integrated setting; and long-term reduction in reliance on SSI. Outcomes of interest for families include heightened expectations for and support of the long-term self-sufficiency of their youth; parent or guardian attainment of education and training credentials; and increases in earnings and total income. To achieve these outcomes, we expect the PROMISE projects to make better use of existing resources by improving service coordination among multiple state and local agencies and programs.
ED, SSA, DOL, and HHS intend the PROMISE projects to address key limitations in the existing service system for youth with disabilities. By intervening early in the lives of these young people, at ages 14-16, the projects engage the youth and their families well before critical decisions regarding the age 18 redetermination are upon them. We expect the required partnerships among the various state and Federal agencies that serve youth with disabilities to result in improved integration of services and fewer dropped handoffs as youth move from one agency to another. By requiring the programs to engage and serve families and provide youth with paid work experiences, the initiative is mandating the adoption of critical best practices in promoting the independence of youth with disabilities.
SSA is requesting clearance for the collection of data needed to implement and evaluate PROMISE. The evaluation provides empirical evidence on the impact of the intervention for youth and their families in several critical areas, including: (1) Improved educational attainment; (2) increased employment skills, experience, and earnings; and (3) long-term reduction in use of public benefits. We base the PROMISE evaluation on a rigorous design that entails the random assignment of approximately 2,000 youth in each of the six projects to treatment or control groups (12,000 total). The PROMISE projects provide enhanced services for youth in the treatment groups; whereas youth in the control groups are eligible only for those services already available in their communities independent of the interventions.
The evaluation assesses the effect of PROMISE services on educational attainment, employment, earnings, and reduced receipt of disability payments. The three components of this evaluation include:
• The process analysis, which documents program models, assesses the relationships among the partner organizations, documents whether the grantees implemented the programs as planned, identifies features of the programs that may account for their impacts on youth and families, and identifies lessons for future programs with similar objectives.
• The impact analysis, which determines whether youth and families in the treatment groups receive more services than their counterparts in the control groups. It also determines whether treatment group members have better results than control group members with respect to the targeted outcomes noted above.
• The cost-benefit analysis, which assesses whether the benefits of PROMISE, including increases in employment and reductions in benefit receipt, are large enough to justify its costs. We conduct this assessment from a range of perspectives, including those of the participants, state and Federal governments, SSA, and society as a whole.
SSA planned several data collection efforts for the evaluation. These include: (1) Follow-up interviews with youth and their parent or guardian 18 months and 5 years after enrollment; (2) phone and in-person interviews with local program administrators, program supervisors, and service delivery staff at two points in time over the course of the demonstration; (3) two rounds of focus groups with participating youth in the treatment group; (4) two rounds of focus groups with parents or guardians of participating youth; and (5) collection of administrative data. At this time, SSA requests clearance for the 18-month
Type of Request: Revision to an OMB-approved information collection.
This is a correction notice. SSA inadvertently published the incorrect burden information for this collection at 80 FR 3713, on 1/23/15. We are correcting this error here.
Social Security Administration (SSA).
Notice of a renewal of an existing computer matching program that will expire on May 10, 2015.
In accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act, as amended, this notice announces a renewal of an existing computer matching program that we are currently conducting with IRS.
We will file a report of the subject matching program with the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives; and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The matching program will be effective as indicated below.
Interested parties may comment on this notice by either telefaxing to (410) 966-0869 or writing to the Executive Director, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, 617 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401. All comments received will be available for public inspection at this address.
The Executive Director, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, as shown above.
The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Public Law (Pub. L.) 100-503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) by describing the conditions under which computer matching involving the Federal government could be performed and adding certain protections for persons applying for, and receiving, Federal benefits. Section 7201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508) further amended the Privacy Act regarding protections for such persons.
The Privacy Act, as amended, regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records in a system of records are matched with other Federal, State, or local government records. It requires Federal agencies involved in computer matching programs to:
(1) Negotiate written agreements with the other agency or agencies participating in the matching programs;
(2) Obtain approval of the matching agreement by the Data Integrity Boards of the participating Federal agencies;
(3) Publish notice of the computer matching program in the
(4) Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;
(5) Notify applicants and beneficiaries that their records are subject to matching; and
(6) Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, terminating, or denying a person's benefits or payments.
We have taken action to ensure that all of our computer matching programs comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act, as amended.
SSA and IRS
The purpose of this matching program is to set forth the terms, conditions, and safeguards under which IRS will disclose to us certain information for the purpose of verifying eligibility or the correct subsidy percentage of benefits provided under section 1860D-14 of the Social Security Act. (42 U.S.C. 1395w-114).
The legal authority for this agreement is Internal Revenue Code section 6103(1)(7), which authorizes IRS to disclose return information with respect to unearned income to Federal, state, and local agencies administering certain benefit programs under the Act. Section 1860-D-14 of the Act requires our Commissioner to determine the eligibility of applicants for the prescription drug subsidy who self-certify their income, resources, and family size. Pursuant to section 1860D-14(a)(3) of the Act, we must determine whether a Social Security Part D eligible individual is a subsidy-eligible individual, and whether the individual is an individual as described in section 1860D-14(a). This agreement is executed in compliance with the
We provide IRS with identifying information with respect to applicants for, and recipients of, the prescription drug subsidy from the existing Medicare Database File system of records, SSA/ORSIS 60-321, published at 71 FR 42159 (July 25, 2006). IRS extracts return information with respect to unearned income from the Information Returns Master File, Treasury/IRS 22.061, as published at 77 FR 47946 (August 10, 2012).
The effective date of this matching program is May 11, 2015, provided that the following notice periods have lapsed: 30 Days after publication of this notice in the
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the PEPFAR Scientific Advisory Board hereinafter referred to as “the Board”, has renewed its charter for an additional 2 years.
The Board serves the Global AIDS Coordinator in a solely advisory capacity concerning scientific, implementation, and policy issues related to the global response to HIV/AIDS. These issues will be of concern as they influence the priorities and direction of PEPFAR evaluation and research, the content of national and international strategies and implementation, and the role of PEPFAR in the international discourse regarding appropriate and resourced responses.
For further information about the charter, please contact Julia MacKenzie, Senior Technical Advisor, Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator at (202) 663-1079 or
The Department of State has renewed the Charter of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy. The Committee serves in a solely advisory capacity concerning major issues and problems in international economic policy. The Committee provides information and advice on the effective integration of economic interests into overall foreign policy and on the Department of State's role in advancing U.S. economic and commercial interests in a competitive global economy. The Committee also appraises the role and limits of international economic institutions and advises on the formulation of U.S. economic policy and positions.
This Committee includes representatives of U.S. organizations and institutions having an interest in international economic policy, including representatives of U.S. business, state and local government, labor unions, public interest groups, and trade and professional associations.
For further information, please call Gregory Maggio, Office of Economic Policy Analysis and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, U.S. Department of State, at (202) 647-2231.
The Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law, Department of State, gives notice of a public meeting to discuss a Working Paper prepared by the Secretariat of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). The public meeting will take place on Tuesday, May 12, 2015 from 1 p.m. until 4 p.m. EDT. This is not a meeting of the full Advisory Committee.
The UNCITRAL Secretariat has revised draft provisions on electronic transferable records, which are presented for in the form of a model law, for discussion during the next meeting of UNCITRAL's Working Group IV, which will meet May 18-22, 2015. The Working Paper, which is numbered WP.132 and includes WP.132/Add.1, is available at
The purpose of the public meeting is to obtain the views of concerned stakeholders on the topics addressed in the Working Paper in advance of the meeting of Working Group IV. Those who cannot attend but wish to comment are welcome to do so by email to Michael Coffee at
Data from the public is requested pursuant to Public Law 99-399 (Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986), as amended; Public Law 107-56 (USA PATRIOT Act); and Executive Order 13356. The purpose of the collection is to validate the identity of individuals who enter Department facilities.
The data will be entered into the Visitor Access Control System (VACS-D) database. Please see the Security Records System of Records Notice (State-36) at
The recommendations relate to the formulation and implementation of U.S. policy towards UNESCO on matters of education, science, communications, and culture. Also, it functions as a liaison with organizations, institutions, and individuals in the United States interested in the work of UNESCO.
The committee is comprised of representatives from various non-governmental organizations focused on matters of education, science, culture, and communications. And it also includes at-large individuals and state, local, and federal government representatives. The committee meets to provide information on UNESCO related topics and make recommendations.
For further information, please call Allison Wright, U.S. Department of State, (202) 663-0026.
Department of State.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Department of State has forwarded the attached Notifications of Proposed Export Licenses to the Congress on the dates indicated on the attachments pursuant to sections 36(c) and 36(d), and in compliance with section 36(f), of the Arms Export Control Act.
Ms. Lisa V. Aguirre, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Department of State, telephone (202) 663-2830; email
Section 36(f) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) mandates that notifications to the Congress pursuant to sections 36(c) and 36(d) must be published in the
Following are such notifications to the Congress:
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the transfer of defense articles, to include technical data, and defense services to support the design, development, production, integration, and manufacture of the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) Guided Missile Weapon System (GMWS).
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Norway to support the integration of Infrared (IR) Thermal Imaging Modules into Remote Weapons Stations (RWS) for sales to the U.S. government.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
October 31, 2014 (Transmittal No. DDTC 14-100)
Honorable John A. Boehner,
Dear Mr. Speaker:
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Canada and Spain to support the manufacture, assembly, and testing of Data Acquisition Converters (DACs), Data Converter Cabinets (DCCs), and spare components and assemblies for the Mk-99 Fire Control System (FCS) and the AN/SPY-1D(V) transmitter group for the Aegis Combat System.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
The attached certification involves the export of GAU-19/B Gatling Gun Systems for exclusive use by the UAE Joint Aviation Command.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of intent to rule on application.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) at Tampa International Airport.
Comments must be received on or before May 7, 2015.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, Florida, 32822-5024.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Joseph W. Lopano, Executive Officer of the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority at the following address: P.O. Box 22287, Tampa, Florida 33622. Air carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of written comments previously provided to the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority under section 158.23 of part 158.
Ms. Marisol Elliott, Program Manager, FAA Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, Florida, 32822-5024, (407) 812-6331, ext. 117. The application may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Tampa International Airport under the provisions of the 49 U.S.C. 40117 and
On February 27, 2015, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority was substantially complete within the requirements of section 158.25 of part 158.
The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, not later than May 29, 2015.
The following is a brief overview of the application:
Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the offices of the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. DOT.
Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by TxDOT and Federal Agencies.
This notice announces actions taken by Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and Federal agencies that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). The actions relate to a proposed highway project, US 183 from US 290 to SH 71 (Bergstrom Expressway) in Travis County in the State of Texas. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
By this notice, TxDOT is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before September 4, 2015. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
Mr. Carlos Swonke, Director, Environmental Affairs Division, Texas Department of Transportation, 125 East 11th Street, Austin, Texas 78701; telephone: 512-416-2734; email:
Notice is hereby given that TxDOT and Federal agencies have taken final agency actions by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the following highway project in the State of Texas: US 183 from US 290 to SH 71 in Travis County (Bergstrom Expressway). The project will result in a total of six tolled main lanes and four to six non-tolled access road lanes (two to three in each direction). The tolled lanes would extend approximately seven miles. The purpose of the project is to improve safety and mobility.
The actions by TxDOT and the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project, for which a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued on March 6, 2015, and in other documents in the TxDOT administrative record. The EA, FONSI, and other documents in the administrative record file are available by contacting TxDOT at the address provided above. The EA and FONSI may also be viewed and downloaded from the project Web site at
This notice applies to all TxDOT decisions and Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1. General: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321-4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109].
2. Air: Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q)].
3. Land: Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303]; Landscaping and Scenic Enhancement (Wildflowers), 23 U.S.C. 319.
4. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 and Section 1536]; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661-667(d)]; Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 U.S.C. 703-712].
5. Historic and Cultural Resources: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470(f)
6. Social and Economic: Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)-2000(d)(1)]; American Indian Religious Freedom Act [42 U.S.C. 1996]; Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) [7 U.S.C. 4201-4209].
7. Wetlands and Water Resources: Clean Water Act [33 U.S.C. 1251-1377]; Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) [16 U.S.C. 4601-4604]; Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) [42 U.S.C. 300(f)-300(j)(6)]; Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 [33 U.S.C. 401-406]; Wild and Scenic Rivers Act [16 U.S.C. 1271-1287]; Emergency Wetlands Resources Act [16 U.S.C. 3921, 3931]; TEA-21 Wetlands Mitigation [23 U.S.C. 103(b)(6)(m), 133(b)(11)]; Flood Disaster Protection Act [42 U.S.C. 4001-4128].
8. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988, Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations; E.O. 11593, Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Resources; E.O. 13007, Indian Sacred Sites; E.O. 13287, Preserve America; E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality; E.O. 13112, Invasive Species; E.O. 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.
The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried-out by TxDOT pursuant to
23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1).
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).
Notice of applications for exemptions request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 73 individuals for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before May 7, 2015.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0315 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 73 individuals listed in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b) (3), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
Mr. Alonzo, 53, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Alonzo understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Alonzo meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Texas.
Mr. Alvarado, 35, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Alvarado understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Alvarado meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Texas.
Mr. Avedisian, 41, has had ITDM since 1985. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Avedisian understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Avedisian meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable
Mr. Burke, 60, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Burke understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Burke meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Massachusetts.
Mr. Burton, 47, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Burton understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Burton meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Tennessee.
Mr. Cassada, 55, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cassada understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cassada meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.
Mr. Clark, 28, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Clark understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Clark meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Ohio.
Mr. Cleaves, 68, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cleaves understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cleaves meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Massachusetts.
Mr. Combs, 79, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Combs understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Combs meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Ohio.
Mr. Cramer, 70, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cramer understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cramer meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from South Dakota.
Mr. Davies, 48, has had ITDM since 1999. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Davies understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Davies meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Maine.
Mr. DeSanno, 52, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. DeSanno understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
Mr. Doering, 58, has had ITDM since 1979. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Doering understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Doering meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative and stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Domarus, 65, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Domarus understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Domarus meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Drabant, 40, has had ITDM since 1979. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Drabant understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Drabant meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Colorado.
Mr. Espinoza, 42, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Espinoza understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Espinoza meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from California.
Mr. Fruehling, 44, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Fruehling understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Fruehling meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Iowa.
Mr. Gabbianelli, 60, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gabbianelli understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gabbianelli meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey.
Mr. Geib, 63, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Geib understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Geib meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Ohio.
Mr. Gibbs, 57, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gibbs understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gibbs meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.
Mr. Goins, 70, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the
Mr. Goodenbour, 51, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Goodenbour understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Goodenbour meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa.
Mr. Gugerty, 36, has had ITDM since 1990. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gugerty understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gugerty meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Illinois.
Mr. Guttormsen, 52, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Guttormsen understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Guttormsen meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey.
Mr. Howell, 50, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Howell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Howell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from North Carolina.
Mr. Hudson, 64, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hudson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hudson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from South Carolina.
Mr. Indorsky, 51, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Indorsky understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Indorsky meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New York.
Mr. Jacobs, 54, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Jacobs understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jacobs meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New York.
Mr. Kaehler, 66, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kaehler understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kaehler meets the requirements of the vision standard at
Mr. Kennedy, 51, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kennedy understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kennedy meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Koons, 45, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Koons understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Koons meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Krichbaum, 52, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Krichbaum understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Krichbaum meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Lahaderne, 24, has had ITDM since 1993. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lahaderne understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lahaderne meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New York.
Mr. Leck, 41, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Leck understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Leck meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Leigh, 50, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Leigh understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Leigh meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Madwatkins, 63, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Madwatkins understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Madwatkins meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey.
Mr. Mathis, 24, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Mathis understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mathis meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Georgia.
Mr. Mauney, 58, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting
Mr. McCaskill, 60, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. McCaskill understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McCaskill meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Maryland.
Mr. McCoy, 49, has had ITDM since 1983. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. McCoy understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McCoy meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Missouri.
Mr. McLamb, 54, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. McLamb understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McLamb meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.
Mr. McPhee, 62, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. McPhee understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McPhee meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Michigan.
Mr. Murray, 46, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Murray understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Murray meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa.
Mr. Naastad, 35, has had ITDM since 1981. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Naastad understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Naastad meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative and stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from North Dakota.
Mr. Niemi, 57, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Niemi understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Niemi meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.
Mr. Norfleet, 37, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Norfleet understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Norfleet meets the
Mr. Oakes, 64, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Oakes understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Oakes meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Hampshire.
Mr. Orsi, 66, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Orsi understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Orsi meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New York.
Mr. Piernik, 59, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Piernik understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Piernik meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Florida.
Mr. Pratt, 70, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pratt understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pratt meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri.
Mr. Reed, 30, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Reed understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Reed meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Nebraska.
Mr. Rivera, 32, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rivera understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rivera meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Illinois.
Mr. Rodehaver, 34, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rodehaver understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rodehaver meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.
Mr. Roth, 59, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Roth understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Roth meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Russell, 53, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or
Mr. Schmidt, 58, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Schmidt understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Schmidt meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Schoeller, 49, has had ITDM since 1989. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Schoeller understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Schoeller meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.
Mr. Schrot, 60, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Schrot understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Schrot meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.
Mr. Snow, 39, has had ITDM since 1979. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Snow understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Snow meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Sundh, 51, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Sundh understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sundh meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Utah.
Mr. Terry, 49, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Terry understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Terry meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Indiana.
Mr. Tilson, 62, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Tilson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tilson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.
Mr. Torlish, 52, has had ITDM since 1983. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Torlish understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Torlish meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014
Mr. Truitt, 48, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Truitt understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Truitt meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Vanderwiele, 53, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Vanderwiele understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Vanderwiele meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New York.
Mr. Vermeire, 50, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Vermeire understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Vermeire meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Washington.
Mr. Walls, 36, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Walls understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Walls meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Webster, 57, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Webster understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Webster meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Vermont.
Mr. Wendinger, 45, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wendinger understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wendinger meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Widener, 57, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Widener understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Widener meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia.
Mr. Wildoner, 54, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wildoner understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wildoner meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Woodbury, 62, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the
Mr. Wright, 31, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wright understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wright meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section of the notice.
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441).
Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for 3 years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV.
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e).
Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary.
The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified by the notice in the
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, To submit your comment online, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of application for renewal and expansion of exemption; request for comments.
The American Pyrotechnics Association (APA) has requested a renewal for 50 APA member-companies of its exemption from FMCSA's regulation prohibiting drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) from driving after the 14th hour after coming on duty, and the expansion of its exemption to 5 additional carriers. The exemption would apply solely to the operation of CMVs by these 55 APA-member companies in conjunction with staging fireworks shows celebrating Independence Day during the periods June 28-July 8, 2015, and June 28-July 8, 2016, inclusive. During these two periods, approximately 3,200 CMVs and drivers employed by these companies would be allowed to exclude off-duty and sleeper-berth time of any length from the calculation of the 14-hour driving window. These drivers would not be allowed to drive after accumulating a total of 14 hours of on-duty time, following 10 consecutive hours off duty, and would continue to be subject to the 11-hour driving time limit, and the 60- and 70-hour on-duty limits.
If granted, this exemption would be effective during the periods of June 28, 2015, through July 8, 2015, inclusive, and June 28, 2016, through July 8, 2016, inclusive. The exemption would expire on July 8, 2016 at 11:59 p.m. Comments must be received on or before May 7, 2015.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2007-28043 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
Ms. Pearlie Robinson, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 202-366-4325. Email:
The hours-of-service (HOS) rule in 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2) prohibits a property-carrying CMV driver from driving after the 14th hour after coming on duty following 10 consecutive hours off duty. Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the HOS requirements in 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2) for a period of up to 2 years if it finds such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption. The procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are prescribed in 49 CFR part 381.
The APA, a trade association representing the domestic fireworks industry, was previously granted an exemption for 50 of the 55 APA member-companies during the Independence Day periods in 2013 and 2014. The APA held similar 2-year exemptions during Independence Day periods from 2005 through 2014. The 2013-2014 exemption expired on July 9, 2014. Like the other 50 member-companies that operated under the 2013-2015 exemption, the 5 additional member-companies would be subject to all of the terms and conditions of the exemption.
The initial APA exemption application for relief from the 14-hour rule was submitted in 2004; a copy of the application is in the docket. That application fully describes the nature of the pyrotechnic operations of the CMV drivers employed by APA member-companies during a typical Independence Day period.
As stated in APA's 2004 request, the CMV drivers employed by APA member-companies are trained pyro-technicians who hold commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) with hazardous materials (HM) endorsements. They transport fireworks and related equipment by CMVs on a very demanding schedule during a brief Independence Day period, often to remote locations. After they arrive, the drivers are responsible for set-up and staging of the fireworks shows.
The APA states that it is seeking an HOS exemption for the 2015 and 2016 Independence Day periods because compliance with the current 14-hour rule in 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2) by its members would impose a substantial economic hardship on numerous cities, towns and municipalities, as well as its member-companies. To meet the demand for fireworks under the current HOS rules, APA states that its member-companies would be required to hire a second driver for most trips. The APA advises that the result would be a substantial increase in the cost of the fireworks shows—beyond the means of many of its members' customers—and that many Americans would be denied this important component of the celebration of Independence Day. The 55 APA-member companies within the scope of this exemption request are listed in an appendix to this notice. A copy of the request for the exemption is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
The APA believes that renewal of the exemption will not adversely affect the safety of the fireworks transportation provided by these motor carriers. According to APA, its member-companies have operated under this exemption for 10 previous Independence Day periods without a reported motor carrier safety incident. Moreover, it asserts, without the extra time provided by the exemption, safety would decline because APA drivers would be unable to return to their home base after each show. They would be forced to park the CMVs carrying HM 1.1G, 1.3G and 1.4G products in areas less secure than the motor carrier's home base. As a condition of holding the exemption, each motor carrier would be required to notify FMCSA within 5 business days of any accident (as defined in 49 CFR 390.5) involving the operation of any its CMVs while under this exemption. To date, FMCSA has received no accident notifications, nor is the Agency aware of any accidents reportable under terms of the prior APA exemptions.
In its exemption request, APA asserts that the operational demands of this unique industry minimize the risks of CMV crashes. In the last few days before the Independence Day holiday, these drivers transport fireworks over relatively short routes from distribution points to the site of the fireworks display, and normally do so in the early morning when traffic is light. At the site, they spend considerable time installing, wiring, and safety-checking the fireworks displays, followed by several hours off duty in the late afternoon and early evening prior to the event. During this time, the drivers are able to rest and nap, thereby reducing or eliminating the fatigue accumulated during the day. Before beginning
The requested exemption from the requirements of 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2) is proposed to be effective June 28 through July 8, 2015, inclusive, and from June 28 through July 8, 2016, inclusive. The exemption would expire on July 8, 2016, at 11:59 p.m. local time.
This exemption would be restricted to drivers employed by the 55 motor carriers listed in the appendix to this notice. The drivers would be given a limited exemption from the requirements of 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2). This regulation prohibits a driver from driving a CMV after the 14th hour after coming on duty and does not permit off-duty periods to extend the 14-hour limit. Drivers covered by this exemption would be able to exclude off-duty and sleeper-berth time of any length from the calculation of the 14-hour limit. This exemption would be contingent on each driver driving no more than 11 hours in the 14-hour period after coming on duty, as extended by any off-duty or sleeper-berth time in accordance with this exception. The exemption would be further contingent on each driver having a full 10 consecutive hours off duty following 14 hours on duty prior to beginning a new driving period. The carriers and drivers must comply with all other requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 350-399) and Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 105-180).
During the periods the exemption would be in effect, no State would be allowed to enforce any law or regulation that conflicted with or with inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a person or entity operating under the exemption (49 U.S.C. 31315(d)).
Exempt motor carriers would be required to notify FMCSA within 5 business days of any accidents (as defined by 49 CFR 390.5) involving the operation of any of their CMVs while under this exemption. The notification must include the following information:
a. Date of the accident,
b. City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or which is closest to the scene of the accident,
c. Driver's name and driver's license number,
d. Vehicle number and State license number,
e. Number of individuals suffering physical injury,
f. Number of fatalities,
g. The police-reported cause of the accident,
h. Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws, or motor carrier safety regulations, and
i. The total driving time and the total on-duty time of the CMV driver at the time of the accident.
The FMCSA does not believe the motor carriers and drivers covered by this exemption, if granted, would experience any deterioration of their safety record. However, should this occur, FMCSA would take all steps necessary to protect the public interest, including revocation of the exemption. The FMCSA will immediately revoke the exemption for failure to comply with its terms and conditions. Exempt motor carriers and drivers would be subject to FMCSA monitoring while operating under this exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) and 31136(e), FMCSA requests public comments on the APA's requested exemption from the requirements of 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2). The FMCSA will review all comments received and determine whether approval of the exemption is consistent with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 51 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.
The exemptions were granted February 18, 2015. The exemptions expire on February 18, 2017.
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at
On January 16, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the public (80 FR 2473). That notice listed 51 applicants' case histories. The 51 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 51 applications on their merits and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.
The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 51 exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons, including refractive amblyopia, amblyopia, corneal scar, macular scar, advanced cataract, esotropia, aphakia, atypical macular degeneration, prosthetic eye, glaucoma, enucleation, strabismic amblyopia, central retinal vein occlusion, complete loss of vision, optic nerve hypoplasia, retinal detachment, macular hole, decreased vision, loss of central field, myopic macular degeneration, exotropia, ischemic optic neuropathy, high myopia, retinal vascular occlusion, full thickness macular hole, ophthalmic artery calcium embolus, optic nerve damage, and dense cataract. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. Thirty of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood.
The 21 individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults have had it for a range of four to 56 years.
Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 51 drivers have been authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging from two to 50 years. In the past three years, five of the drivers were involved in crashes and six were convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the January 16, 2015 notice (80 FR 2473).
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3 years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several research studies designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
The first major research correlating past and future performance was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with other factors. These factors—such as age, sex, geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history—are used every day by insurance companies and motor
Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of the 51 applicants, five of the drivers were involved in crashes, and six were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the future.
We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to the 51 applicants listed in the notice of January 16, 2015 (80 FR 2473).
We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements on the 51 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver program.
Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
FMCSA received three comments in this proceeding. The comments are discussed below.
Letitia Robinson, David Wang, and Eliezer Lebron are all in favor of granting Vantha Yeam an exemption from the Federal vision standard.
Based upon its evaluation of the 51 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 13 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
This decision is effective May 13, 2015. Comments must be received on or before May 7, 2015.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2008-0398; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2010-0201; FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2010-0010; FMCSA-2010-0024; FMCSA-2012-0338; FMCSA-2013-0022], using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.
This notice addresses 13 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has evaluated these 13 applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are: Toby L. Carson (TN), Ronnie Clark (ME), Adan Cortes-Juarez (WA), Vincent C. Durazzo, Jr. (CT), Johnnie L. Hall (MD), Randy M. Lane (PA), Michael O. Regentik (MI), Alvaro F. Rodriguez (TX), Esequiel Rodriguez, Jr. (TX), George K. Sizemore (NC), Donald E. Stone (VA), Edward Timpson (RI), Michael A. Zingarella (CT).
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 13 applicants has satisfied the entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (72 FR 12666; 72 FR 25831; 74 FR 7097; 74 FR 15584; 74 FR 15586; 75 FR 25919; 75 FR 39729; 75 FR 54958; 75 FR 70078; 75 FR 77942; 76 FR 5425; 76 FR 9856; 76 FR 17481; 76 FR 20076; 76 FR 21796; 76 FR 28125; 77 FR 36338; 77 FR 74731; 78 FR 12811; 78 FR 12815; 78 FR 16762; 78 FR 18667; 78 FR 22596; 78 FR 22602; 78 FR 24300). Each of these 13 applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while
These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2008-0398; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2010-0201; FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2011-0010; FMCSA-2011-0024; FMCSA-2012-0338; FMCSA-2013-0022), 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 or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces that 30 individuals have applied for a medical exemption from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). In accordance with the statutory requirements concerning applications for exemptions, FMCSA requests public comments on these requests. The statute and implementing regulations concerning exemptions require that exemptions must provide an equivalent or greater level of safety than if they were not granted. If the Agency determines the exemptions would satisfy the statutory requirements and decides to grant these requests after reviewing the public comments submitted in response to this notice, the exemptions would enable 30 individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before May 7, 2015.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0383 using any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
• Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
• Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety, (202) 366-4001,
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has authority to grant exemptions from many of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), as amended by Section 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (Pub. L. 105-178, June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 107, 401). FMCSA has published in 49 CFR part 381, subpart C final rules implementing the statutory changes in its exemption procedures made by section 4007, 69 FR 51589 (August 20, 2004).
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved without the exemption. The decision of the Agency must be published in the
The current provisions of the FMCSRs concerning hearing state that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person
First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5—1951.
49 CFR 391.41(b)(11). This standard was adopted in 1970, with a revision in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
FMCSA also issues instructions for completing the medical examination report and includes advisory criteria on the report itself to provide guidance for medical examiners in applying the hearing standard. See 49 CFR 391.43(f). The current advisory criteria for the hearing standard include a reference to a report entitled “Hearing Disorders and Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers” prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, FMCSA's predecessor, in 1993.
FMCSA requests comments from all interested parties on whether a driver who cannot meet the hearing standard should be permitted to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Further, the Agency asks for comments on whether a driver who cannot meet the hearing standard should be limited to operating only certain types of vehicles in interstate commerce, for example, vehicles without air brakes. The statute and implementing regulations concerning exemptions require that the Agency request public comments on all applications for exemptions. The Agency is also required to make a determination that an exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, To submit your comment online, go to
Mr. Boatman, 37, holds an operator's license in Arizona.
Mr. Crowe, 50, holds an operator's license in Missouri.
Mr. Cannon, 47, holds an operator's license in Missouri.
Mr. Cater, 54, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Tennessee.
Ms. Crews, 44, holds an operator's license in Florida.
Mr. Cribb, 36, holds an operator's license in South Carolina.
Mr. Darnell, 40, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Arizona.
Mr. Dickson, 55, holds an operator's license in Texas.
Mr. Eller, 50, holds an operator's license in North Carolina.
Mr. Fellows, 22, holds an operator's license in New York.
Mr. Grady, 46, holds a Class B commercial driver's license (CDL) in Colorado.
Ms. Haselhorst, 27, holds an operator's license in Nebraska.
Mr. Hill, 31, holds an operator's license in Georgia.
Mr. Gensler, 36, holds an operator's license in Ohio.
Mr. Lipyanic, 49, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Lloyd, 41, holds an operator's license in Ohio.
Ms. Maginity, 23, holds an operator's license in Iowa.
Mr. Malley, 60, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Missouri.
Ms. Maloney, 26, holds an operator's license in New York.
Ms. Marcus, 42, holds an operator's license in Michigan.
Mr. Mason, 33, holds an operator's license in California.
Ms. Meadows, 57, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Georgia.
Mr. Moffett, 23, holds an operator's license in Georgia.
Mr. Saive, 29, holds a Class B commercial driver's license (CDL) in Ohio.
Mr. Shores, 47, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in North Carolina.
Mr. Veach, 32, holds an operator's license in Illinois.
Mr. Whitman, 39, holds an operator's license in New Jersey.
Mr. Whittaker, 44, holds a Chauffeur's license in Indiana.
Mr. Whittington, 48, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Michigan.
Mr. Matchett, 32, holds an operator's license in New York.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b)(4), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. The Agency will consider all comments received before the close of business May 7, 2015. Comments will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of Revised NTD Reporting Manual and Response to Comments.
This notice provides the Federal Transit Administration's response to comments on proposed changes to the National Transit Database (NTD) Reporting Manual, and provides notice that the final Reporting Manual for the 2014 Report Year is now available. The guidance changes in this notice primarily relate to urbanized area transit providers.
Upon publication of this notice the rules and guidance it describes will become final.
Keith R. Gates, National Transit Database Program Manager, FTA Office of Budget and Policy, (202) 366-1794, or email:
Approximately 850 urban transit systems currently report to the NTD Annual Module. Each system provides a report on their sources and uses of funds, their capital assets, the amount of service they provide and a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) certification of the data. The reporting requirements for the NTD are within the level that received Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) approval as part of the entire NTD PRA notice published in the
On August 19, 2014, FTA published a
The updated guidance in the Annual Reporting Manual will provide better data to the NTD which is used in the grant apportionment formulas and for analysis of industry trends. These changes also implement many of the policy changes enacted in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). This notice is independent of the larger rulemaking process that is underway to implement a National Transit Asset Management system and other FTA rulemaking activities.
FTA previously proposed 11 changes to NTD reporting:
FTA received 119 comments from 75 sources. This notice will respond to comments on items A through J. The FTA received a substantial number of comments on item K, the expansion of capital asset reporting. As FTA originally proposed that the expanded asset reporting would not take effect until at least the FY 2015 Report Year, FTA is taking additional time to consider these comments, and will respond to them in a future notice in the
FTA proposed the following guidance to improve the consistency and specificity of urban transit systems' ADA data reporting. This proposed guidance would have only applied to full reports from urbanized areas; not to rural reporting, nor to reporting under a small systems waiver.
(1) Transit systems that operate demand response services that are not intended to fulfill the ADA paratransit requirements of any fixed route service should report that zero (0) of their service and operating expenses are attributable to ADA requirements.
(2) Transit systems that operate demand response services to fulfill the ADA paratransit requirements of fixed-route service must report their unlinked trips provided to all eligible paratransit passengers (eligibility determined by local policy), excluding only the following:
(i) Trips that are sponsored by a third party (
(ii) Trips whose origin or destination (or both) are outside the minimum service (within
(iii) Trips taken during times when the fixed-route system is not operating.
(3) Transit systems that operate demand response services to fulfill the ADA paratransit requirements of a fixed-route service would then report their operating expenses for such services as attributable to the ADA on the same basis. In general, if a transit system does not have an accounting system to track this, then it may report on the basis of the percentage of total demand response trips that were identified as ADA trips, per the above criteria. That is, if ADA trips were 76 percent of all demand-response mode trips, then ADA operating expenses would be reported as 76 percent of total demand-response mode operating expenses.
FTA received 27 comments on the clarification of the ADA Paratransit Services reporting standards. Comments indicated that agencies have integrated ADA requirements into their demand-response systems to such an extent that it is technically difficult for them to separate this service from their normal operations. Their responses noted that it would constitute a considerable burden for them to report this data separately. As FTA does not wish to impose additional reporting burden to collect this data, we withdraw this proposal.
FTA proposed to clarify that in order for service to be classified as Purchased Transportation (PT), the service must meet three criteria:
(1) The contract or agreement must provide for the buyer to be responsible for the fully-allocated cost of providing the service;
(2) The service must be operated in the name of the buyer (
(3) The seller must operate and manage the service.
Public transportation services that do not meet the above criteria may still be reported to the NTD. However, these services would instead be reported to the NTD as directly operated and would be reported by the organization that is actually operating the service.
FTA received nine (9) comments in response to the clarifications on the reporting of contractual relationships. Three (3) transit providers indicated that they support this clarification or that their business practices are already in compliance with these reporting standards. One (1) additional commenter believes this clarification may be unnecessary because any buyer/seller relationship anomalies would be apparent from the type of NTD forms submitted by the reporter. The remaining five (5) comments are summarized below:
One commenter suggests that the language be changed from the fully allocated cost to the market rate for providing the service; with the market rate being defined as the rate achieved either through a competitive procurement process or a negotiated procurement. Requiring the seller to provide complete accounting records to support the fully allocated rate would be cumbersome and could lead to unintended consequences for transit agencies seeking to provide purchased transportation services at the lowest cost.
The issue presented here is that records must be kept to demonstrate that the amount paid for the purchased service is the actual cost of providing that service. The FTA reserves the right to audit that claim. In general, it can be presumed that if the seller is not receiving funds from any source other than the buyer, then the buyer is paying the fully-allocated cost.
A commenter from an industry association suggested that final guidance should not prohibit the identity of the seller from being displayed on vehicles or uniforms. They also requested clarity on how to identify 'fully allocated costs' of contracted service when some services are provided by the buyer.
A commenter from a transit agency also requested clarification on whether the name of the seller can be included on the vehicle or advertisements.
FTA replies that, although the vehicle used for purchased transportation must prominently display the name of the buyer, this does not preclude the name of the seller, manufacturer or advertisers from also being on the vehicle.
A commenter from a transit agency expressed concern that the proposed change would eliminate the ability to report ridership for its program of `last mile' shuttles from its rail stations.
FTA will address the specifics of this situation directly with the reporter, but nothing in this proposal would prevent any transit service from being reported to the NTD and included in the formula apportionment. Any transit service that cannot be reported as purchased transportation could be reported to the NTD as a directly operated service instead.
One commenter from a transit agency suggested that certain demand response services provided by a third party should be exempt from the requirement to be operated in the name of the buyer. For example, some transit systems use car services with non-dedicated fleets to provide some ADA paratransit services.
FTA agrees and will clarify in the Reporting Manual that demand-response taxi services need not be operated in the name of the buyer.
Comments received in response to this item did not identify any significant issues preventing its implementation and FTA will proceed with publishing these clarifications.
On January 28, 2015, FTA published a notice in the
(1) Over 50 percent of the route operates in a separated right-of-way (ROW) dedicated for transit use during peak periods (though other traffic may make turning movements through the separated right-of-way);
(2) the route has defined stations that are accessible for persons with disabilities, offer shelter from the weather, and provide information on schedules and routes;
(3) the route offers faster passenger travel times through congested intersections by using active signal priority in separated guideway, and either queue-jump lanes or active signal priority in non-separated guideway;
(4) the route offers
(5) a separate and consistent brand identity applied to stations and vehicles.
Bus services that implement features of
FTA received five (5) comments in response to the proposed definition of the bus rapid transit mode.
Two (2) commenters suggested that this change was premature given that Circular C5300.1 is still under development and could have an impact on this definition. Both commenters suggested that these changes should be deferred and reconsidered after the circular has been completed.
The final circular was posted in the
One transit system recommended the following changes to the proposed definition: “1) Over 50 percent of the route operating in a separated ROW dedicated for transit use and HOV/HOT use during peak periods; and, 2) the route offers short headway, bi-directional, service during peak periods.” They believe that the current definition discourages partnerships that provide a combination of BRT and high-occupancy toll or HOV services, including the U.S. 36 BRT in Colorado. The weekend requirement would also disqualify some BRT projects or force unproductive weekend service.
Another transit agency commenter expressed concern that the change in definition will disqualify some existing BRT routes from being formally classified as BRT. They request that the calculation to determine separated ROW exclude segments where a separated ROW is not necessary due to insignificant traffic congestion. They further recommend that the 'treatment of congested intersections' criterion be simplified to be more consistent with the MAP-21 definition that references `traffic signal priority for public transportation vehicles'. This change in definition would allow routes that utilize traffic signal priority at some but not all intersections to still be designated BRT.
While FTA has considered alternate interpretations of MAP-21, including these proposed by the commenters, FTA notes that the statute has clear and specific requirements for separated guideway and high-frequency service on weekends. The FTA must follow the statutory requirements in these areas.
The FTA proposed, beginning with the Fiscal Year 2016 apportionment, to no longer consider transit service operated on any HOT lane to be the same as transit service operated on an HOV lane, for purposes of the formula apportionment for the High-Intensity Motorbus Tier. Comments on this were solicited in the previously mentioned March 3, 2014, FTA
The FTA received eight (8) comments in response to the guidance for service in HOT lanes. Five (5) commenters provided feedback that was not specific to FTA's request for comment on continuing to collect HOT lane data for future use. These comments were in response to the March 3, 2014
Three (3) commenters provided feedback specific to this request for comment. One (1) commenter suggested that any decisions on continuing to collect HOT lane data should be postponed until after final publication of the C 5300.1
FTA has considered the feedback regarding the burden of collecting HOT lane data and agrees that this reporting burden should be minimized. FTA thus amends its proposal to only collect data on HOT lane directional route miles. Data on HOT lane directional route miles used in transit service will continue to provide important baseline data for policy makers, and these data can be collected with a minimum of reporting burden. However, FTA will discontinue collecting data on vehicle revenue miles driven on those HOT lanes.
The definition of
The FTA also proposed to clarify the instructions in the Reporting Manual regarding the allocation of transit service between multiple areas. Transit service classified as
The FTA received five (5) comments in response to the proposed update to the definition of commuter service and allocation of data attributable to an urbanized area. One (1) commenter stated that these updates would not impact their current reporting practices. The remaining four (4) comments all requested that FTA continue its current practice of allowing agencies to determine how service is allocated amongst the UZAs they serve.
The comments on these proposed updates were solely concerned with the allocation of service data amongst the UZAs being served by commuter service. FTA wishes to clarify that the proposed updates will not impact the ability for transit agencies to continue with their current methodology for determining how service data is allocated amongst the UZAs they serve. A transit agency may continue to allocate service data amongst the UZAs they serve according to a reasonable methodology based on the service provided.
The FTA proposes to eliminate consolidated reports and have all urbanized area transit providers report directly to the NTD. Currently there are fewer than 10 consolidated reporters in the NTD. Consolidated reporting makes it difficult to validate and assure the accuracy of NTD data. It complicates NTD data presentation and makes it harder to use the NTD to answer basic questions about the transit industry.
The FTA received 25 comments on the proposal to eliminate consolidated reporting and update the small systems waiver reporting. All commenters were opposed to the elimination of consolidated reporting. Fifteen (15) stated that eliminating consolidated reporting would be administratively burdensome for the small agencies that are currently part of consolidated reports. Eleven (11) stated that the cost of an individual audit to verify their individual NTD submission would be cost prohibitive. Eight (8) commenters expressed concerns that small agencies that would no longer be eligible for a consolidated reporting would also no longer be required to report passenger miles. This reduction in passenger miles reporting would impact the overall formula funding for the UZA. Eight (8) commenters expressed concerns over the timeline to implement this change and requested extensions between 6 months and 1 year. Finally, eight (8) commenters requested that, should consolidated reporting be eliminated, the threshold for a small systems waiver should be increased from 30 vehicles to 50 vehicles.
The FTA has taken into consideration comments provided by the industry, but does not agree that eliminating consolidated reporting will be more burdensome. Virtually all consolidated reporters are small systems (30 or fewer vehicles) and will qualify for reduced reporting (formerly called small systems waiver reporting). As part of a consolidated report these systems are currently providing data for a full NTD report which requires significantly more effort. For example, reduced reporting does not require sampling for average trip length, an expensive and time-consuming process. In addition, small systems filing reduced reports are only required to do an audit of their accounting capabilities once within their first year of reporting. They are not required to do the annual audits that are required of full reporters. Thus, FTA concludes that concerns about excess reporting burden and auditing requirements are based on an incomplete understanding of the requirements.
In response to the concerns regarding reporting of passenger miles, small systems still have the option of submitting full NTD reports, with passenger miles, if they believe this will have a significant impact on formula funding for their urbanized areas. FTA has evaluated this impact for consolidated reporters, all of which are in urbanized areas with populations of greater than 200,000. Only 5.6 percent of Urbanized Area Formula funds (5307) and 8 percent of Bus and Bus Facilities funds (5339) are apportioned based on passenger miles. Consolidated reporters are all relatively small operators and so generate only a small portion of the passenger miles in their urbanized areas. The FTA finds that the impact of their not reporting those miles on total funding for those areas is quite small.
The FTA recognizes that the proposed timeline may cause a hardship to some reporters and will work with consolidated reporter agencies to transition them to individual reporters over a 2 year period using data waivers and extensions as necessary. FTA also will provide training as the comments we received show that many of these agencies do not understand the reduced reporting requirements and process. Additionally, FTA wants to emphasize that any large transit system that currently sponsors a consolidated report may continue to fill out NTD Report Forms on behalf of reporters filing with reduced reporting requirements. The FTA also will consider adjusting the limit for small systems, currently at 30 or fewer vehicles in maximum operating service, at some point in the future.
The FTA proposed that the name and organization type on the B-10 form must now match the total revenues and total expenses reported on the F forms.
The FTA received three (3) comments in response to this clarification. One (1) commenter stated that this will not impact their current reporting. One (1) commenter reiterated a concern over administrative burden for small agencies if the consolidated reporting is eliminated. This concern has been addressed in section F of this notice and will not be further addressed here.
The final comment expressed a concern that reporters to the NTD would
The FTA does not intend to collect data on non-transit services. However, it may be necessary to appropriately indicate the size of non-transit costs in order to ensure that the NTD report can be reconciled with a reporter's published financial statements.
The FTA proposed to formally allow the CEO (or equivalent officer) to delegate those duties to another individual within the organization. This delegation would be indicated by submission of a delegation letter, signed by the CEO on organization letterhead, naming the individual who will act in the CEO's name for this purpose.
The FTA received six (6) responses to this clarification. Three (3) commenters supported or expressed that this clarification would not impact their current reporting. One (1) individual expressed concern that his transit system, which has no direct employees, and is run by a Board of Commissioners, would have difficulty complying with this requirement. The remaining two (2) commenters were seeking additional clarification on this policy. The first requested FTA guidance on the extent to which certification would be considered a 'public record' under FOIA. The second was seeking clarification on the impact this would have on the individual provided with the delegation of the CEO submission. Specifically, is the delegate also responsible for data issues or concerns?
First, this is an option for reporters, not a requirement. It does not require any change in current certification procedures. Our intent is to expedite submission of reports at agencies where it is difficult for the CEO to schedule time to submit the report by allowing delegation of this task. Although the CEO can have subordinates certify the report, the CEO remains, ultimately, responsible for the accuracy of the data submitted. All NTD documents will continue to be public records subject to Federal and State Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) laws.
The comments received on this item did not identify any significant issues with its implementation and FTA will proceed with allowing delegation of CEO certification responsibility as proposed.
In its ongoing efforts to streamline NTD reporting requirements and to eliminate unnecessary data collection FTA proposed to eliminate the requirement for rail systems to report vehicle revenue miles, vehicle revenue hours, unlinked passenger trips, and passenger miles traveled for morning peak and evening peak periods. The FTA is no longer using these data and has determined that this data collection is unnecessary. This will align the service data reporting requirements for rail modes with other modes.
The FTA also proposed to eliminate the B-60 and B-70 forms for identifying funds passed from one public entity to another public entity. The clarifications to the reporting of purchased transportation proposed above will render these forms unnecessary, and FTA will no longer require these data.
There were six (6) responses to the proposed elimination of unnecessary reporting requirements. Four (4) commenters expressed support for these changes. Two (2) commenters suggested that FTA should consider eliminating the fleet management plan reporting requirements if the proposed expansion of capital asset reporting (see section G) is implemented. The FTA will proceed with eliminating the proposed reporting requirements and take the recommendation to eliminate the fleet management plan reporting requirement under consideration while making a final determination on the capital asset reporting recommendation (see section K).
The FTA proposed to withdraw several outdated Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) Circulars that have remained in effect. In particular, FTA proposed to withdraw UMTA C2710.1A, UMTA C2710.2A, and UMTA C2710.4A, which relate to procedures for conducting statistical samples to collect passenger mile data. The FTA proposed to replace these Circulars with the
In addition, FTA proposed to withdraw UMTA C2710.6 and UMTA C2710.7. Both are outdated circulars that have been superseded by the NTD Reporting Manual. The texts of these circulars, as well as the NTD Sampling Manual may be reviewed at
The FTA received Six (6) comments on the updated guidance for the sampling of passenger miles. Three (3) comments expressed support for this change. Two (2) commenters asked FTA to clarify in the final publication of this guidance that alternative methodologies for sampling passenger miles would be acceptable. Specifically, one industry association commented “to the extent sampling methodologies other than described in the
The FTA intends to continue with the implementation of this updated guidance. In response to the concerns raised by commenters wishing to continue using an alternative sampling methodology the updated guidance presented in this
The FTA received 18 comments on the proposed expansion of Capital Asset Reporting. Many comments raised concerns over implementing this change prior to the publication of a final Transit Asset Management rule. FTA wants to be thoughtful and consider all comments before making this change and will respond to these comments in a future notice in the
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 7, 2015.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2015-0043. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Linda Williams, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-0903, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel PACIFIC PEARL is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2015-0043 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 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 DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 7, 2015.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2015-0042. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Linda Williams, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-0903, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel PHANTOM is: INTENDED COMMERCIAL USE OF VESSEL: “Sport Fishing.” GEOGRAPHIC REGION: “Hawaii.”
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2015-0042 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 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 DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 7, 2015.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2015-0041. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Linda Williams, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-0903, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel OCTOPUS is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2015-0041 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 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 DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 7, 2015.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2015-0040. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Linda Williams, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-0903, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel SHIP FACED is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2015-0040 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 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 DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration.
Notice and request for comments.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The collection is necessary to determine if a graduate of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy or a State maritime academy student incentive payment graduate is complying with the terms of the service obligation. We are required to publish this notice in the
Written comments should be submitted by June 8, 2015.
You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. DOT-MARAD-2015-0044] through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Danielle Bennett, 202-366-7618, Office of Maritime Workforce Development, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:93.
Notice is hereby given that on March 31, 2015, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) approved the application of Commonwealth Bank, F.S.B., Mt. Sterling, Kentucky, to convert to the stock form of organization. Copies of the application are available for inspection on the OCC Web site at the FOIA Electronic Reading Room
By the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
United States Mint, Department of Treasury.
Notification of Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee April 6, 2015, Public Meeting.
Pursuant to United States Code, title 31, section 5135(b)(8)(C), the United States Mint announces the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) public meeting scheduled for April 6, 2015.
Date: April 6, 2015.
Time: 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. EDT.
Location: This meeting will occur
Subject: Discussion of design concepts for the 2017 Lions Club International Century of Service Commemorative Coin and the Selma Foot Soldiers of 1965 Congressional Gold Medal.
Interested persons should call the CCAC HOTLINE at (202) 354-7502 for the latest update on meeting time and room location.
In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 5135, the CCAC:
• Advises the Secretary of the Treasury on any theme or design proposals relating to circulating coinage, bullion coinage, Congressional Gold Medals, and national and other medals.
• Advises the Secretary of the Treasury with regard to the events, persons, or places to be commemorated by the issuance of commemorative coins in each of the five calendar years succeeding the year in which a commemorative coin designation is made.
• Makes recommendations with respect to the mintage level for any commemorative coin recommended.
William Norton, United States Mint Liaison to the CCAC; 801 9th Street NW., Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7200.
Any member of the public interested in submitting matters for the CCAC's consideration is invited to submit them by fax to the following number: 202-756-6525.
31 U.S.C. 5135(b)(8)(C).
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 38 U.S.C. App. 2 that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans will be held May 13, 2015 through May 15, 2015. On May 13 and May 14, the Committee will meet at the Department of Veterans Affairs, 90K NE., Room 700, Washington, DC, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. On May 15, the Committee will meet at the Department of Veterans Affairs, 90K NE., Room 700, Washington, DC, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The meeting will be open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to provide the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with an on-going assessment of the effectiveness of the policies, organizational structures, and services of VA in assisting homeless Veterans. The Committee shall assemble and review information related to the needs of homeless Veterans and provide advice on the most appropriate means of providing assistance to that subset of the Veteran population. The Committee will make recommendations to the Secretary regarding such activities.
The agenda will include briefings from officials at VA and other agencies regarding services for homeless Veterans. The Committee will also receive a briefing on the annual report that was developed after the last meeting of the Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans and will then discuss topics for its upcoming annual report and recommendations to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. Interested parties should provide written comments on issues affecting homeless Veterans for review by the Committee to Ms. Lisa Pape, Designated Federal Officer, VHA Homeless Programs Office (10NC1), Department of Veterans Affairs, 90K NE., Washington, DC, or email to
Members of the public who wish to attend should contact both Charles Selby and Timothy Underwood of the VHA Homeless Program Office by April 17, 2015, at
The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that the Clinical Science Research and Development Service Cooperative Studies Scientific Evaluation Committee will hold a meeting on May 13, 2015, at the American Association of Airport Executives, 601 Madison Street, Alexandria, VA. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and end at 3:00 p.m.
The Committee advises the Chief Research and Development Officer through the Director of the Clinical Science Research and Development Service on the relevance and feasibility of proposed projects and the scientific validity and propriety of technical details, including protection of human subjects.
The session will be open to the public for approximately 30 minutes at the start of the meeting for the discussion of administrative matters and the general status of the program. The remaining portion of the meeting will be closed to the public for the Committee's review, discussion, and evaluation of research and development applications.
During the closed portion of the meeting, discussions and recommendations will deal with qualifications of personnel conducting the studies, staff and consultant critiques of research proposals and similar documents, and the medical records of patients who are study subjects, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. As provided by section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended, closing portions of this meeting is in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (c)(9)(B).
The committee will not accept oral comments from the public for the open portion of the meeting. Those who plan to attend or wish additional information should contact Dr. Grant Huang, Acting Director, Cooperative Studies Program (10P9CS), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20420, at (202) 443-
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; 12-month finding and status review.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 12-month finding on a petition to list the Big Sandy crayfish (known at the time of the petition as
We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before June 8, 2015. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Martin Miller, Chief, Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Regional Office, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035; telephone 413-253-8615; facsimile 413-253-8482. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
This document consists of:
• Our 12-month finding that listing is warranted for the petitioned Big Sandy crayfish.
• Our status review finding that listing is warranted for the nonpetitioned Guyandotte River crayfish.
• A proposed rule to list the Big Sandy crayfish (
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes' biology, ranges, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of these species, including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering.
(b) Genetics and taxonomy.
(c) Historical and current ranges, including distribution and abundance patterns, and quantitative evidence of the species' occurrence, especially in lower elevation sites within the known watersheds.
(d) Historical and current population levels and current and projected population trends.
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for these species, their habitats, or both.
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of these species, which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing
(a) Information regarding current conditions and future trends of managing residential and commercial wastewater and how those conditions and trends may affect the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes.
(b) Information on total number of stream miles monitored within the Big Sandy and Upper Guyandotte watershed for compliance with Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251
(c) Quantitative water quality parameters (
(d) Trends in Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfish population estimates or abundance as it relates to water quality parameters.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to these species and existing regulations that may be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current status, range, distribution and abundance, and population size of each of these species, including the locations and habitat conditions of any additional populations.
(5) Information concerning dispersal mechanisms and distances for these species.
(6) Locations of likely suitable habitat where previously unknown populations of either species may occur.
(7) Information related to climate change within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfish and how it may affect the species' habitat.
(8) The reasons why areas should or should not be designated as critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
(9) The following specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of habitat for the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes.
(b) What areas, that are currently occupied and that contain the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of these species, should be included in a critical habitat designation and why.
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be needed for the essential features in potential critical habitat area, including managing for the potential effects of climate change.
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of these species and why.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the
If you submit information via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, if requested. Requests for a public hearing must be received within 45 days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
We identified the Big Sandy crayfish, then known as
In 2010, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) petitioned the Service to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species from the southeastern United States under the Act. On September 27, 2011, the Service published a substantial 90-day finding for 374 of the 404 species, including what was then known as the Big Sandy crayfish (
Since the settlement agreement, we received information indicating that the Big Sandy crayfish is two separate species (see the
The crayfish subspecies
From the late 20th century until 2011,
We have carefully reviewed the peer-reviewed genetic and taxonomic information referenced above and conclude that the crayfish from the Big Sandy basin formerly thought to be
Carapace (shell) coloration ranges from olive brown to light green, and the cervical groove is outlined in light blue, aqua, or turquoise. The rostral margins and post orbital (behind the eye) ridges are crimson red. The abdominal terga (dorsal plates covering the crayfish's abdomen) range from olive brown to light brown to light green and are outlined in red. The walking legs of the Guyandotte River crayfish are blue, while those of the Big Sandy crayfish range from light green to green blue to green. Chelae of the Guyandotte River crayfish range from blue green to light blue, while those of the Big Sandy crayfish are usually aqua but sometimes green blue to blue (Loughman 2014, p. 1-2; Thoma
Thoma (2009, entire; 2010, entire) reported demographic and life-history observations for the Big Sandy crayfish in Virginia and Kentucky. Based on these observations and professional expertise, he concluded that the general life cycle pattern of the species is 2 to 3 years of growth, maturation in the third year, and first mating in midsummer of the third or fourth year. Following midsummer mating, the annual cycle involves egg laying in late summer or fall, spring release of young, and late spring/early summer molting. He hypothesized the likely lifespan of the Big Sandy crayfish to be 5 to 7 years, with the possibility of some individuals reaching 10 years of age. Of 60 Big Sandy crayfish juvenile and adult specimens collected, Loughman (2014, p. 20) noted 5 total carapace length (TCL) size cohorts—8.0 to 19.0 mm (0.31 to 0.75 in); 32.0 to 35.0 mm (1.26 to 1.38 in); 36.0 to 43.0 mm (1.42 to 1.69 in); 44.0 to 49.0 mm (1.73 to 1.93 in); and 51.0 to 53.0 mm (2.01 to 2.09 in), indicating at least 6 molts likely occurred over an individual's lifetime after the first year of life. The smallest Form I male was 25.1 mm (0.99 in) TCL; the smallest ovigerous (egg-carrying) female was 42.0 mm (1.65 in) TCL.
In Virginia, Thoma (2009, p. 4) reported the presence of males, females, and juveniles during all months sampled (March and May through October). The author noted Form I males and females cohabiting under rocks in July, presumably in some stage of mating, with ovigerous females reported in July, August, and October and females carrying instars (larval crayfish) in September, October, and March (the March observation indicating that late spawning females may overwinter with instars attached). Two ovigerous females with TCLs of 42 mm (1.65 in) and 46 mm (1.81 in) were observed with 90 and 142 eggs, respectively (Thoma 2009, p. 4). Thoma (2010, pp. 3, 5) reported males, females, and juveniles in both months sampled (July and September) in Kentucky, with ovigerous females reported in September.
There is less information available specific to the life history of the Guyandotte River crayfish, but based on other shared characteristics with the Big Sandy crayfish, we conclude the life span and age to maturity are similar.
Thoma (2009, pp. 3, 13) conducted a feeding study using 10 Big Sandy crayfishes collected from Virginia. Each animal was offered a variety of food items, and observations were made daily to monitor consumption. The test period was 1 week, and each animal was tested twice. The food items offered represented the following broad categories: insect, fish, worm, crayfish, root, nut, herbaceous plant, fruit, and leaf litter. Results indicated that the Big Sandy crayfish had a preference for animal tissue. In each test, animal matter was always consumed first; however, plant material was at least partially consumed in most trials. Thoma concluded that the species was best classified as a carnivore (Thoma 2009, p. 13). However, Loughman (2014, p. 21) reviewed field studies of other tertiary burrowing
Habitat requirements for these two closely related species appear to be similar in their respective, separate river basins. The Big Sandy crayfish is known only from the Big Sandy River basin in eastern Kentucky, southwestern Virginia, and southern West Virginia; the Guyandotte River crayfish is known only from the Guyandotte River basin in southern West Virginia (Figure 1). Both the Big Sandy and the Guyandotte Rivers flow in a northerly direction where they each join the Ohio River.
Both river basins are in the Appalachian Plateaus physiographic province, which in this region is characterized by rugged, mountainous terrain with steep hills and ridges dissected by a network of deeply incised valleys (Ehlke
Suitable instream habitat for both species is generally described as clean, third order or larger (width of 4 to 20 meters (m) (13 to 66 feet (ft))), fast-flowing, permanent streams and rivers with unembedded slab boulders on a bedrock, cobble, or sand substrate (Channell 2004, pp. 21-23; Jezerinac
Jezerinac
Both species also appear to be intolerant of excessive sedimentation and other pollutants. This statement is based on observed habitat characteristics from sites that either formerly supported either the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfish or from sites within either of the species' historical ranges that were predicted to be suitable for the species, but where neither of the species (and in some cases no crayfish from any species) were observed (Channell 2004, pp. 22-23; Jezerinac
Results from multiple crayfish surveys dating back to 1900 and a 2014 examination of all existing museum specimens indicate that the historical range of the Guyandotte River crayfish is limited to the Upper Guyandotte River basin in West Virginia and that the historical range of the Big Sandy crayfish is limited to the upper Big Sandy River basin in eastern Kentucky, southwest Virginia, and southern West Virginia. Within these larger river basins, the two species were apparently more narrowly distributed to certain stream reaches that exhibited the habitat characteristics required by the species, as discussed in the previous section. Evidence of each species' historical distribution is presented below.
Prior to Thoma (2009, entire), little information exists regarding the species' status in Kentucky. The earliest reference of the species was Hobbs (1969, pp. 134-135), who provided no specific collection records but did provide a shaded range map including portions of the Levisa Fork, Russell Fork, and Tug Fork basins as part of the species' range. A survey of the region by the U.S. National Museum in 1972-74 did not record the species' presence (Loughman 2014, p. 11). The first confirmed specimens from Kentucky were collected in 1991, from two locations in the Russell Fork in Pike County, and in 1998, another survey confirmed the species' presence in this river (Loughman 2014, p. 11). In 1999, the species was found in the Levisa Fork in Floyd County, and in 2002, the species was found in Knox Creek (Tug Fork drainage) in Pike County (Loughman 2014, p. 11). Based on his best professional judgment, Thoma (2010, p. 6) concludes that prior to the widespread habitat degradation in the region (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species—Factor A), the species likely occupied suitable streams throughout the basin, from the Levisa Fork/Tug Fork confluence to the headwaters. Evidence that the species once occupied suitable habitat down to the Levisa Fork/Tug Fork confluence is also provided by Fetzner and Thoma (2011, pp. 9-10), who found that the pattern of certain genetic markers in Big Sandy crayfish specimens collected from the now isolated Russell Fork, Levisa Fork, and Tug Fork watersheds indicate that the species once had a significantly larger range than it currently occupies. In his 2014 report describing the species, Thoma
There are three known occurrences of the Big Sandy crayfish in West Virginia, all occurring in 2009 or later and from McDowell County (Loughman 2014, pp. 9-11). See the
Collections of crayfish specimens from the region are held at the United States National Museum, Eastern Kentucky University, Ohio State University, West Liberty University, and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Several vouchered specimens in some of these collections were labeled as
Also questionable are specimens collected in 1900, reportedly from Crane Creek in the New River basin in Mercer County, West Virginia. While Loughman (2014, p. 17) did confirm that these specimens are Big Sandy crayfish (
The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries possesses a collection of specimens from the New River Watershed that were originally identified as
Taylor and Shuster (2004) report a single 1967
After reviewing the best available information, we conclude that the historical range of the Guyandotte River crayfish (
The best available scientific information indicates that both the Guyandotte River crayfish and the Big Sandy crayfish initially occurred in suitable stream habitat throughout their respective historical ranges (Loughman, pers. comm., October 24, 2014; Thoma 2010, p. 10; Thoma
In 2007 and 2012, the Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW; 2014) noted two occurrences of the Big Sandy crayfish in Pike County, Kentucky. In 2007, the species was reported in the Russell Fork near the Virginia border, the same area from which the species was reported in 1991 and 1998 (as discussed previously). In 2012, the species was again confirmed at this location and at a site in Shelby Creek, from where the species was known since Thoma's 2009 survey work (discussed above).
From 2007 to 2009, Thoma (2009, pp. 2, 10) conducted a comprehensive survey of the Big Sandy River basin of Virginia and confirmed the species' continued presence in Buchanan and Dickenson Counties, and added a new occurrence in Wise County. Buchanan County is drained primarily by the Levisa Fork tributary system; however, the southwestern portion of the county is drained by the Russell Fork system, and a section of the north portion is drained by the Tug Fork system. Thoma sampled 16 likely Big Sandy crayfish sites in the Levisa Fork system in Buchanan County and found the species at 5 sites, all in a single stream, Dismal Creek. One site was sampled in the Tug Fork drainage of Buchanan County, but the species was not found. In the Russell Fork drainage of Buchanan, Dickenson and Wise Counties, the Big
In 2009, Loughman (2014, pp. 8-11) surveyed 22 likely sites in the upper Tug Fork basin in McDowell and Mingo Counties, West Virginia, with the species being found at 1 site in Dry Fork. This was the first observation of the species in the West Virginia section of the Big Sandy basin. In 2011, Loughman confirmed the species' presence at the Dry Fork site and reported a new occurrence in the Tug Fork mainstem. In 2014, Loughman again confirmed the species' presence at the Dry Fork site and reported a new location 25.8 km (16.0 mi) farther upstream in the Dry Fork. This is the farthest upstream occurrence in the Tug Fork drainage of West Virginia (Loughman 2014, p. 11). See Table 1b for all stream occurrences of the Big Sandy crayfish.
Data to inform a rangewide population estimate for either the Big Sandy crayfish or the Guyandotte River crayfish are sparse, but historical evidence, observations from existing healthier sites, and expert opinion suggest that, prior to the significant land-disturbing activities that began in the late 1800s (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species—Factor A), these species were the dominant tertiary burrowing crayfish occupying the previously described habitat type throughout their respective ranges (Loughman, pers. comm., October 24, 2014; Thoma 2010, p. 10). Loughman (pers. comm., October 24, 2014) surmises that, within each suitable stream reach (
The best available information indicates that, of the nine streams where the Guyandotte River crayfish had previously been confirmed, it persists in only one: Pinnacle Creek. The R.D. Bailey Dam (completed in 1980) and Lake, on the Guyandotte River near the town of Justice, West Virginia, physically isolates two of the streams with historical records of the species (Huff Creek and Little Huff Creek) from the remaining seven subwatersheds known to have harbored the species, including Pinnacle Creek. The species was confirmed in Little Huff Creek in 1971, and Huff Creek in 1989 (Jezerinac
Since 1978, four Pinnacle Creek sites have been surveyed for the species. One of these sites is located near the creek's confluence with the Guyandotte River, and the other three are located approximately 21 km (13 mi) upstream of this site. The three upstream sites are within about 1.6-km (1.0-mi) stream distance of each other and were surveyed in 1988, 2001, 2009, and 2011, with one, zero, two, and five individual Guyandotte River crayfish reported in each respective year (Channell 2004, pp. 16-17, Jezerinac
In the upper Levisa Fork drainage of Buchanan County, Virginia, the species was found only in a single stream: Dismal Creek. During separate sampling events in 2007, 2008, and 2009, 33 specimens were collected from 4 sites (3 to 12 individuals per site) in Dismal Creek. The upper Levisa Fork (including Dismal Creek) is physically isolated from the rest of the species' range by the Fishtrap Dam and Lake (completed in 1969), located on the Levisa Fork about 4.5 km (2.8 mi) upstream of the Levisa Fork-Russell Fork confluence in Kentucky.
In the Kentucky portion of the Big Sandy crayfish's range, Thoma (2010, p. 6) found the species in very low numbers (one to two individuals) at two sites in the lower portion of the Levisa Fork and described the population as stressed and in poor condition (Thoma 2010, p. 6). He also found the species in two tributaries to the Levisa Fork: Shelby Creek and Russell Fork. Specimens were collected at 3 sites in Shelby Creek, with the farthest downstream site producing 12 individuals and the farthest upstream site producing 4. The author described these populations as “very healthy,” but noted that the middle sampling site produced only two specimens. In the Russell Fork upstream of Shelby Creek, 7 specimens were collected from 1 site and 20 from another; this section was also described as a “healthy” population. Thoma did not detect the species in the mainstem of the Levisa Fork between Shelby Creek and the Virginia State line. However, the previously mentioned Fishtrap Dam and Lake makes much of this stretch of river unsuitable for the species and isolates the Big Sandy crayfish population in the lower Levisa Fork system from the upper reaches, including the only remaining population in Dismal Creek, Virginia.
In the Tug Fork drainage of Kentucky, Thoma (2010, p. 6) surveyed seven sites and confirmed the species in low numbers (one, three, and seven individuals) at three sites. Those sites that produced specimens were all located in tributary streams near their confluences with the Tug Fork mainstem. In 2009, Loughman and Welsh (as reported in Loughman 2014, pp. 8-11) surveyed 24 likely sites in the Tug Fork basin in West Virginia, and observed the species at one site, collecting three individuals from Dry Creek, an upper Tug Fork tributary. In 2011, Loughman returned to the area and, with the same level of sampling effort, recovered nine specimens from Dry Creek and eight individuals from a site in the Tug Fork mainstem. The Tug Fork site had produced zero specimens in 2009. In 2014, Loughman again confirmed the species' presence at the Dry Fork site, collecting 11 individuals, and reported a new occurrence 25.8 km (16.0 mi) farther upstream in the Dry Fork, where he collected seven individuals. See Tables 2a and 2b for a summary of the survey results for the Big Sandy crayfish (2006 to 2014) by watershed boundaries and by State boundaries.
To better compare the status of the Big Sandy and the Guyandotte River crayfish populations among existing sites, Loughman (2014, pp. 8-15) standardized the results of his and Thoma's (2009; 2010) survey work, which used the same sampling techniques, to the common metric CPUE (
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C 1533) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.
Based on the best available information, and as previously described, the Guyandotte River crayfish and the Big Sandy crayfish exist only in suitable stream habitats in the Upper Guyandotte basin of southern West Virginia and the Big Sandy basin of eastern Kentucky, southwestern Virginia, and southern West Virginia, respectively. Within the historical range of each species, aquatic habitat has been severely degraded by past and ongoing human activities (Channell 2004, pp. 16-23; Jezerinac
The regional timber and coal booms led to a concurrent increase in human population as people moved into the area for work. Between 1900 and 1950, the human populations of the five counties that constitute the core ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes increased by a range of 300 percent to more than 500 percent (Figure 6). And because of the rugged topography of the region, most of the main roads, railroads, and residential and commercial development was (and remains) confined to the narrow valley bottoms, through which the region's streams and rivers also flow. This pattern of development resulted in the destruction of riparian habitat and the direct discharge of sewage, refuse, and sediments into the adjacent waters (Eller 1982, pp. 162, 184-186).
While most of the residential and commercial development was, and remains, concentrated in the valley bottoms, the timber cutting and coal mining operations occurred throughout, including the ridges and steep mountainsides, resulting in severe soil erosion and sedimentation of the region's streams and rivers. An account from the 1920s described the regional landscape as being “scarred and ugly, and streams ran brown with garbage and acid runoff from the mines” (Eller 1982, p. 162). While we are not aware of rigorous water quality or habitat studies from this early period, a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report on the coal resources in Pike County, Kentucky (Big Sandy basin) provides evidence that by 1937, habitat conditions conducive to the Big Sandy crayfish were likely degraded, noting that throughout the county the clearing of timber from the hillsides and subsequent attempts at cultivating the steep slopes caused severe soil erosion into the basin's streams “keeping them muddy and partly filling their channels” (Hunt
In the Big Sandy basin of Virginia, the VADEQ reported that 25 streams, stream segments, or stream systems (about 475 km (295 mi) of stream length) were impaired. Impairment assessments for aquatic life are based on measures such as benthic macroinvertebrate community structure or water temperature and for recreational use based on measures such as
Water quality monitoring data for the Upper Guyandotte basin indicate that 62 streams (362 km (225 mi) of stream length) in the basin are impaired. Forty-four streams are listed for biological impairment, 14 streams exceed the water quality standard for selenium, and 4 streams are listed for fecal coliform bacteria (WVDEP 2012, pp. 28, 42-44). Although the specific sources of these impairments are listed as “unknown,” a 2004 report by the EPA (2004, entire) links the metals and pH impairments to coal mining-related activities, including AML drainage, and links the fecal coliform impairments to “urban and residential runoff, leaking sanitary sewers, failing septic systems, straight pipe discharges, grazing livestock, runoff from cropland, and wildlife” (EPA 2004, p. 2).
Water quality information appears to be correlated with the presence or absence of the Guyandotte River crayfish. For example, during their 1988 and 1989 surveys for the Guyandotte River crayfish at 13 of the 15 known locations for the species (as well as 42 other potentially suitable sites) in the Upper Guyandotte basin, Jezerinac
In 2001, Channell (2004, pp. 16-21) surveyed and assessed habitat conditions at each of the 15 historical Guyandotte River crayfish locations. Habitat quality was assessed and scored per the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rapid bioassessment protocol (RBP) (Barbour
In 2009, Pinnacle Creek was the only site in the Upper Guyandotte system confirmed to still harbor the Guyandotte River crayfish. This site is located in a mostly forested floodplain and was characterized as having coal fines and moderate sedimentation but with an abundance of unembedded slab boulders in both riffles and runs (Loughman 2013, p. 6). At another historical site, Huff Creek, the species had been reported as “moderately abundant” in 1989 (Jezerinac
In association with her study of the Guyandotte River crayfish population, Channell (2004, pp. 21-23) also surveyed suitable locations in the Levisa Fork system (Big Sandy basin) in Virginia. Big Sandy crayfish were confirmed at three of the six sites surveyed, with the author noting that the species was found under large rocks (greater than 0.5 m (1.6 ft) across) in streams from 4 to 15 m (13 to 49 ft) wide and without coal fines in the substrate. While RBP scores for the six sites did not indicate impairment, the author noted that the three streams where the Big Sandy crayfishes were not observed were included on the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's 303(d) list of impaired waters as a result of damming, urban influence, mining activities, or sewage (Channell 2004, pp. 22-23).
Thoma (2009, p. 7 and 2010, pp. 3-4) examined the relationship of
In 2009 and 2011, Loughman and Welsh (2013) surveyed specifically for the species in the Upper Guyandotte River basin, Tug Fork basin (Big Sandy River basin), and the Bluestone River basin (a tributary of the New River) in West Virginia. Results of this intensive effort (69 sites surveyed in 2009) indicated that most sites exhibited excessive sedimentation and embedded slab boulders, or had been channelized and were devoid of large boulders (Loughman and Welsh 2013, p. 23;
The response of aquatic species to coal mining-induced degradation are also well documented, commonly observed as a shift in a stream's macroinvertebrate (
There is less specific information available on the effects of coal mining-induced degradation to crayfishes. A study in Ohio using juvenile Appalachian Brook crayfish (
Welsh and Loughman (2014, entire) analyzed crayfish distributions in the heavily mined upper Kanawha River basin in southern West Virginia and determined that physical habitat quality (including substrate type and quality, embeddedness, instream cover, channel morphology, and gradient) and stream order (size) were the best predictors of crayfish presence or absence and crayfish diversity. They observed that, in general, secondary and tertiary burrowing species such as Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes were associated with high-quality physical habitat conditions. The exception to this pattern was
In addition to degrading water quality, coal mining increases erosion and sedimentation in downgradient streams and rivers (Hartman
While coal extraction from the southern Appalachian region has declined from the historical highs of the 20th century, and is unlikely to ever return to those levels (McIlmoil,
The detrimental effects of coal mining often continue long after active mining ceases. Hopkins
By-products of deep and surface mines include manganese and iron (Sams and Beers 2000, pp. 2, 4, 6). When these by-products enter the aquatic environment, they can affect crayfish in two ways: directly through the body and indirectly through food sources (Loughman 2014, p. 27). Both iron and manganese are upregulated into the body through gill respiration and stomach and intestinal absorption (Baden and Eriksson 2006, pp. 67-75). In addition, both iron and manganese bioaccumulate in crayfish when they feed on benthic macroinvertebrates. Although manganese is “an essential metal and is thus required in at least a minimum concentration for an animal to be able to fulfil its metabolic functions” (Baden and Eriksson 2006, p. 64), it can be physiologically toxic to crayfishes when levels are too high (Loughman 2014, p. 27). While manganese absorption may not directly cause mortality, it may adversely affect reproductive cycles and oocytes (immature egg cells) (Baden and Eriksson 2006, p. 73). “Iron and manganese also physically bond to crayfish exoskeletons following ecydisis [
Loughman (2014, pp. 26-27) has observed Guyandotte River crayfish that have visible signs of manganese encrustation. While Hay's 1900 Indian Creek, Wyoming County, West Virginia, specimen did not exhibit manganese encrustation, Hobbs' 1947 specimens from Indian Creek did. In addition, Big Sandy crayfish specimens collected by Loughman in 2014, from Dry Fork, McDowell County, West Virginia, also exhibited manganese encrustation. The Dry Fork specimens were sampled from a site immediately downstream of deep mine effluents entering Dry Fork (Loughman 2014, p. 27). While manganese encrustations have been found on both Guyandotte River and Big Sandy crayfish specimens, we are uncertain the extent to which these deposits occur across the species' ranges or if and to what extent the effects of the manganese and iron exposure has contributed to the decline of the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes.
Ancillary to the coal mines are the processing facilities that use various mechanical and hydraulic techniques to separate the coal from rock and other geological waste material. This process results in the creation of large volumes of “coal slurry,” a blend of water, coal fines, and sand, silt, and clay particles, which is commonly disposed of in large impoundments created in the valleys near the coal mines. In multiple instances, these impoundments have failed catastrophically and caused substantial damage to downstream aquatic habitats (and in some cases the loss of human life) (Frey
In addition to the stressors described above, several active surface coal mines in the Pinnacle Creek watershed may pose an immediate threat to the continued existence of the Guyandotte River crayfish. These mines represent geographic extents of 13 to 242 hectares (ha) (33 to 598 acres (ac)) and are located either on Pinnacle Creek (
In summary, we conclude that even with the observed and projected decline in human population within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes, development will still be concentrated in the narrow valley riparian zones and may contribute to the degradation of water quality and the aquatic habitat required by both species.
The construction of new roads also has the potential to further degrade the aquatic habitat in the region, primarily by increasing erosion and sedimentation and perhaps roadway contaminant loading to local streams. Two new, multi-lane highway projects, the King Coal Highway and the Coalfields Expressway, are in various stages of development within the Big Sandy and Upper Guyandotte River watersheds (VDOT 2015; West Virginia Department of Transportation (WVDOT) 2015a; WVDOT 2015b). In West Virginia, the King Coal Highway right-of-way runs along the McDowell and Wyoming County line, the dividing line between the Tug Fork and Upper Guyandotte watersheds, and continues into Mingo County (which is largely in the Tug Fork watershed). This highway project will potentially affect the current occupied habitat of both crayfish species, but is of particular concern for the Guyandotte River crayfish because of a section that will parallel and cross Pinnacle Creek.
In West Virginia, the Coalfields Expressway right-of-way crosses Wyoming and McDowell Counties roughly perpendicular to the King Coal Highway and continues into Buchanan, Dickenson, and Wise Counties, Virginia. This project runs through the Upper Guyandotte, Tug Fork, Levisa Fork, and Russell Fork watersheds and has the potential to affect the aquatic habitats in each basin. Of particular concern are sections of the Coalfields Expressway planned through perhaps the most robust Big Sandy crayfish populations in Dickenson County, Virginia.
Unpaved forest roads (
In addition to erosion from unpaved road surfaces, we expect erosion from unpaved road stream crossings throughout the range of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes to also contribute significant sediment loading to local waters. Wang
Nearly all of the land within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes is privately owned. Offroad vehicle use on private land is largely unregulated, and we found no comprehensive information on the extent of offroad trails in the region, ridership numbers, or the effects to local streams. However, the Hatfield-McCoy Trail system, which was created in 2000 to promote tourism and economic development in southern West Virginia, may provide some insight into the scale of ORV recreation within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes (Pardue
The Pinnacle Creek Trail System, opened in 2004, is located entirely within the Pinnacle Creek watershed and may pose a significant threat to the continued existence of the Guyandotte River crayfish. The majority of this unpaved trail network runs along the ridgelines or up and down the steep mountainsides; however, approximately 13 km (8.0 mi) of ORV trail is located in the Pinnacle Creek riparian zone, including the area last known to harbor the Guyandotte River crayfish. At several locations along this section of trail, riders are known to operate their vehicles in the streambed or in adjacent “mud holes” (You Tube 2008; You Tube 2010; You Tube 2011; You Tube 2013; Loughman, pers. comm., October 24, 2014). It is reasonable to conclude that these activities increase erosion and sedimentation in Pinnacle Creek and degrade the habitat of the Guyandotte River crayfish. In addition, the instream operation of ORVs in Pinnacle Creek has the potential to crush or injure individual crayfish directly.
Hood
This analysis of potential erosion within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes likely underestimates actual erosion rates. Hood
Swank
Because timber harvesting occurs year to year on a rotational basis throughout the Big Sandy and Upper Guyandotte watersheds, and because the excess sedimentation from harvested sites may take decades to flush from area streams, we conclude that soil erosion and sedimentation from commercial timber harvesting is likely relatively constant and ongoing in the region, and continually degrades the aquatic habitat required by the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes.
Numerous studies have reported that natural gas development has the potential to degrade aquatic habitats (Adams
Within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes the topography is rugged and the dominant land cover is forest; therefore, the construction of new gas wells and related infrastructure usually involves timber cutting and significant earth moving to create level well pads, access roads, and pipeline rights-of-way. Drohan and Brittingham (2012, entire) analyzed the runoff potential for shale gas development sites in the Allegheny Plateau region of Pennsylvania, and found that 50 to 70 percent of existing or permitted pad sites had medium to very high runoff potential and were at an elevated risk of soil erosion. McBroom
Natural gas well drilling and well stimulation, especially the technique of hydraulic fracturing, can also degrade aquatic habitats when drilling fluids or other associated chemicals or high salinity formation waters (
We found no information indicating that overutilization has led to the loss of populations or a significant reduction in numbers of individuals for either the Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish. Therefore, we conclude based on the best scientific and commercial information available that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes does not currently pose a threat to the Big Sandy crayfish or the Guyandotte River crayfish. However, because the best available information indicates that the Guyandotte River crayfish persists only in very low numbers in the midreach of a single stream, increased awareness of the species' rarity may make it more desirable to collectors. Similarly, because the Big Sandy crayfish is now recognized as a newly described species, it too could become more desirable to collectors. Any future collection of either species, but especially of the Guyandotte River crayfish, could pose a threat to their continued existence.
We found no information indicating that disease or predation has led to the loss of populations or a significant reduction in numbers of individuals of the Guyandotte River crayfish. However, because the species is known to persist only in very low numbers in the midreach of a single stream, any source of mortality or any impairment of growth, reproduction, or fitness may pose a threat to its continued existence. Additionally, it is possible that this remnant population lacks the genetic diversity of the original wider
Similarly, we have no information indicating that disease or predation has led to the decline of the Big Sandy crayfish. However, the existing population is fragmented into at least four isolated subpopulations in several different watersheds, the upper Tug Fork system, the upper Levisa Fork system, Russell Fork/Levisa Fork system, and the Pound River/Cranes Nest River system (see Factor E, below). While this isolation may provide the species some resiliency should disease (or other catastrophe) affect any one of the subpopulations, this potentially positive aspect of habitat fragmentation is countered by the fact that each isolated subpopulation is at a higher risk of extirpation. However, the best scientific and commercial information available indicates that disease or predation do not pose a threat to the existence of either the Guyandotte River crayfish or the Big Sandy crayfish now or in the future.
Few existing Federal or State regulatory mechanisms specifically protect the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes or the aquatic habitats where they occur. The species' habitats are afforded some protection from water quality and habitat degradation under the Federal CWA (33 U.S.C. 1251
In 1989, 12 years after enactment of the CWA and SMCRA, the Guyandotte River crayfish was known to occur in low numbers in Huff Creek and Pinnacle Creek (Jezerinac
As discussed in previous sections, erosion and sedimentation caused by various land-disturbing activities, such as surface coal mining, roads, forestry, and oil and gas development, pose an ongoing threat to the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. State efforts to address excessive erosion and sedimentation involve the implementation of BMPs; however, as discussed under Factor A, above, BMPs are often not strictly applied, are sometimes voluntary, or are situationally ineffective. Additionally, studies indicate that even when BMPs are properly applied and effective, erosion rates at disturbed sites are still significantly above erosion rates at undisturbed sites (Christopher and Visser 2007, pp. 22-24; Grant and Wolff 1991, p. 36; Hood
Although the majority of the land throughout the ranges of the two species is privately owned, publicly managed lands in the region include a portion of the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia, and 10 State wildlife management areas and parks in the remainder of the Big Sandy and Upper Guyandotte watershed (one in Russell Fork, three in Levisa Fork, four in Tug Fork, two in Upper Guyandotte). However, three of these parcels surround artificial reservoirs that are no longer suitable habitat for either the Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish, and six others are not in known occupied crayfish habitat. Only the Jefferson National Forest and the Breaks Interstate Park in the Russell Fork watershed at the Kentucky/Virginia border appear to potentially offer additional protections to extant Big Sandy crayfish populations, presumably through stricter management of land-disturbing activities that cause erosion and sedimentation. However, the extent of publically owned land adding to the protection of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes is minimal and not sufficient to offset the rangewide threats to either species.
Based on the Guyandotte River crayfish's original distribution and the behavior of other similar stream-dwelling crayfish, it is reasonable to surmise that, prior to the widespread habitat degradation in the basin, individuals from the various occupied sites were free to move between sites or to colonize (or recolonize) suitable vacant sites (Kerby
And, as noted above in Factor A, the persistence of the last known Guyandotte River crayfish population is threatened by several proximate active surface coal mines and ORV use in the Pinnacle Creek watershed. The species lacks redundancy (
Because the Big Sandy crayfish is wholly aquatic and therefore limited in its ability to move from one location to another by the basin's complex hydrology, the species' overall population size and current geographic range must be considered carefully when evaluating its risk of extinction. Prior to the significant habitat degradation that began in the late 1800s, the Big Sandy crayfish likely occurred in suitable stream habitat throughout its range (from the Levisa Fork/Tug Fork confluence to the headwater streams in the Russell Fork, Levisa Fork, and Tug Fork basins) (Thoma 2010, p. 6; Thoma
There is one exception to this subpopulation organization. In 2009, a single Big Sandy crayfish was recovered by Thoma (2010, p. 6) in the lower Levisa Fork at the town of Auxier, Kentucky, more than 50 km (31 mi) downstream of the nearest other occupied site near the town of Coal Run Village, Kentucky (Figure 7). The author surveyed 8 other likely sites in the lower Levisa system between Auxier and Coal Run Village, but did not confirm the species at any location. Therefore, we conclude that the lower Levisa Fork system does not represent a viable subpopulation.
The four remaining subpopulations differ in their resiliency. The upper Levisa Fork population persists in a single stream, as do the Pound River/Cranes Nest River populations. While the species appears to be moderately abundant in these streams (see Table 3, above), the fact that they are restricted to single streams (versus a network of streams) makes them especially susceptible to catastrophic loss as a result of a contaminant spill, disease, stream dredging, or other perturbation. The upper Tug Fork population also appears to be relatively insecure, with most sites where the species is still found showing very low abundance. Thoma (2010, p. 6) found the species in low numbers in the Kentucky portion of the upper Tug Fork system and described their status there as “highly tenuous.”
This isolation, caused by habitat fragmentation, reduces the resiliency of the species by eliminating the potential movement of individuals from one subpopulation to another, or to unoccupied sites that could become habitable in the future. This inhibits gene flow in the species as a whole and will likely reduce the genetic diversity and perhaps the fitness of individuals in the remaining subpopulations.
As discussed above under Factor A, ORV use of unpaved trails are a source of sedimentation into the aquatic habitats within the range of the Guyandotte River crayfish. In addition to this habitat degradation, there is the potential for direct crayfish mortality as a result of crushing when ORVs use stream crossings, or when they deviate from designated trails or run over slab boulders that the Guyandotte River crayfish use for shelter (Loughman 2014, pp. 30-31).
Based on the risk factors described above, the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish are at an increased risk of extinction primarily due to land-disturbing activities that increase erosion and sedimentation, and subsequently degrade the stream habitat required by both species (Factor A), and due to the effects of small population size (Factor E). Other contributing factors are degraded water quality and unpermitted stream dredging (Factor A). While events such as collection (Factor B) or disease and predation (Factor C) are not currently known to affect either species, any future incidences will further reduce the resiliency of the Guyandotte River and Big Sandy crayfishes.
As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing whether the Big Sandy crayfish is an endangered or threatened species, as cited in the petition, throughout all of its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the Big Sandy crayfish. We reviewed the petition, information available in our files, and other available published and unpublished information, and we consulted with recognized crayfish experts and other Federal and State agencies.
We identify that the primary threats to the Big Sandy crayfish are attributable to land disturbance that increases erosion and sedimentation, which degrades the stream habitat required by both species (Factor A), and to the effects of small population size (Factor E). Other contributing factors are degraded water quality and unpermitted stream dredging (Factor A). Existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to reduce these threats (Factor D).
On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information available, we find that the petitioned action to list the Big Sandy crayfish as an endangered or threatened species is warranted. A determination on the status of the species as an endangered or threatened species is presented below in the proposed listing determination.
As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing whether the Guyandotte crayfish is an endangered or threatened species throughout all of its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the Guyandotte River crayfish. We reviewed information available in our files, and other available published and unpublished information, and we consulted with recognized crayfish experts and other Federal and State agencies.
We identify that the primary threats to the Guyandotte River crayfish are attributable to land disturbance that increases erosion and sedimentation, which degrades the stream habitat required by both species (Factor A), and to the effects of small population size (Factor E). Other contributing factors are degraded water quality and unpermitted stream dredging (Factor A). Existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to reduce these threats (Factor D).
On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information available, we find that the Guyandotte River crayfish warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species. A determination on the status of the species as an endangered or threatened species is presented below in the proposed listing determination.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination.
As discussed above, we have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information and data available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish. Rangewide habitat loss and degradation (Factor A) is occurring from land-disturbing activities that increase erosion and sedimentation, which degrades the stream habitat required by both species. Identified sources of ongoing erosion include active surface coal mining, commercial forestry, unpaved roads, gas and oil development, and road construction. An additional threat specific to the Guyandotte River crayfish is the operation of ORVs in and adjacent to Pinnacle Creek, the last known remaining extant population. Contributing stressors to both species include water quality degradation (Factor A) resulting from abandoned coal mine drainage; untreated (or poorly treated) sewage discharges; road runoff; unpermitted stream dredging; and potential catastrophic spills of coal slurry, fluids associated with gas well development, or other contaminants. The effects of habitat loss have resulted in a significant range contraction of the
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as any species “that is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.” As discussed above, we find that the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish are in danger of extinction throughout their entire ranges based on the severity and immediacy of threats currently affecting these species. For the Big Sandy crayfish, although the species still occupies sites located throughout the breadth of its historical range, the remaining sites are significantly reduced to only the higher elevations within the watersheds; the remaining habitat and populations are threatened by a variety of factors acting in combination to reduce the overall viability of the species. The risk of extinction is high because the remaining populations are small and isolated, and because there is limited potential for recolonization. For the Guyandotte River crayfish, the species has been reduced to a single site, and its habitat and population are threatened by a variety of factors acting in combination to reduce, and likely eliminate, the overall viability of the species. The risk of extinction is high because the single population is very small and isolated, and has essentially no potential to recolonize other sites. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we propose to list the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish as endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act because the threats are impacting both of the species at a high level of severity across their severely contracted ranges now, and are expected to increase into the future. All of these factors combined lead us to conclude that the threat of extinction is high and immediate, thus warranting a determination as an endangered species rather than a threatened species for both the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish are endangered throughout all of their ranges, no portion of their ranges can be “significant” for purposes of the definitions of “endangered species” and “threatened species.” See the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of Its Range” in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of “Endangered Species” and “Threatened Species” (79 FR 37577, July 1, 2014).
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; private organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for downlisting or delisting, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our Web site (
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration (
Although the Big Sandy crayfish and Guyandotte River crayfish are only proposed for listing under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for these species. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on these species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE); issuance of section 404 CWA permits by the ACOE; issuance or oversight of coal mining permits by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM); and construction and maintenance of roads, bridges, or highways by the Federal Highway Administration.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these) endangered wildlife within the United States or on the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. 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 Act.
It is our policy, as published in the
(1) Normal agricultural and silvicultural practices, including herbicide and pesticide use, which are carried out in accordance with any existing regulations, permit and label requirements, and best management practices; and
(2) Surface coal mining and reclamation activities conducted in accordance with the 1996 Biological Opinion between the Service and OSM.
Based on the best available information, the following activities may potentially result in a violation of section 9 the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unlawful destruction or alteration of the habitat of the Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish (
(2) Unauthorized discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals or other pollutants into waters supporting the Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish that kills or injures individuals, or otherwise impairs essential life-sustaining behaviors such as breeding, feeding, or finding shelter.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the appropriate office:
• Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office, 330 West Broadway, Suite 265, Frankfort, KY 40601; telephone (502) 695-0468; facsimile (502) 695-1024.
• Southwest Virginia Ecological Services Field Office, 330 Cummings Street, Abingdon, VA 24210; telephone (276) 623-1233; facsimile (276) 623-1185.
• West Virginia Field Office, 694 Beverly Pike, Elkins, WV 26241; telephone (304) 636-6586; facsimile (304) 636-7824.
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features:
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in the
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to the species, or (2) such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
There is currently no imminent threat of take attributed to collection or vandalism under Factor B for either the Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish, and identification and mapping of critical habitat is not likely to increase any such threat. In the absence of finding that the designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a species, if there are any benefits to a critical habitat designation, then a prudent finding is warranted. The potential benefits of designation include: (1) Triggering consultation under section 7 of the Act, in new areas for actions in which there may be a Federal nexus where it would not otherwise occur because, for example, it is or has become unoccupied or the occupancy is in question; (2) focusing conservation activities on the most essential features and areas; (3) providing educational benefits to State or county governments or private entities; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to the species. Therefore, because we have determined that the designation of critical habitat will not likely increase the degree of threat to these species and may provide some measure of benefit, we find that designation of critical habitat is prudent for the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish.
Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the species is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following situations exist: (i) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the impacts of the designation is lacking, or (ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
As discussed above, we have reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological needs of these species and habitat characteristics where these species are located. Because we are seeking additional information regarding water quality conditions within the range of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes, updated occurrence records for both species, future climate change effects on the species' habitat, and other analyses, we conclude that the designation of critical habitat is not determinable for the Big Sandy crayfish or the Guyandotte River crayfish at this time. We will make a determination on critical habitat no later than 1 year following any final listing determination.
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the
We have determined that environmental assessments and
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to tribes. We are not aware of any Big Sandy Crayfish or Guyandotte River Crayfish populations on tribal lands.
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the Internet at
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of the Northeast Regional Office.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of 12-month petition finding.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 12-month finding on a petition to list the previously classified subspecies Humboldt marten (
The finding announced in this document was made on April 7, 2015.
This finding is available on the Internet at
Bruce Bingham, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (see
We use many acronyms and abbreviations throughout this 12-month finding. To assist the reader, we provide a list of these here for easy reference:
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
On September 28, 2010, we received a petition dated September 28, 2010, from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC), requesting that we consider for listing the (then-classified) subspecies Humboldt marten (
On January 12, 2012, we published in the
On June 23, 2014, we published a scoping notice in the
According to section 3(16) of the Act, we may consider for listing any of three categories of vertebrate animals: A species, subspecies, or DPS (see the Service's 1996 DPS Policy at 61 FR 4722). We refer to each of these categories as a potential “listable entity.” We evaluated three possible listable entities for this 12-month finding based upon the best available published and unpublished information for martens in coastal northern California and coastal Oregon (for further details, please see the
• Subspecies Humboldt marten (
• Subspecies Humboldt marten (
• DPS of the Pacific marten (
This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the September 28, 2010, petition to list the (then-classified) subspecies Humboldt marten (
This finding is based upon the Species Report titled “Coastal Oregon and Northern Coastal California populations of the Pacific marten (
The American marten (
As noted above, at the time of our 90-day finding (77 FR 1900; January 12, 2012), the Humboldt marten was classified as
Ongoing genetic research indicates uncertainty in the currently accepted Pacific marten subspecies delineations in California and Oregon. Specifically, the best available data indicate that the
Based on the September 28, 2010, petition, and information received both prior and subsequent to our June 23, 2014, scoping notice regarding the listable entity, we considered whether the potential coastal DPS of Pacific marten meets the definition of a DPS as described in the Service's DPS Policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996).
Section 3(16) of the Act defines the term “species” to include “. . . 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.” We have always understood the phrase “interbreeds when mature” to mean that a DPS must consist of members of the same species or subspecies in the wild that would be biologically capable of interbreeding if given the opportunity, but all members need not actually interbreed with each other. A DPS is a subset of a species or subspecies, and cannot consist of members of a different species or subspecies. The “biological species concept” defines species according to a group of organisms, their actual or potential ability to interbreed, and their relative reproductive isolation from other organisms. This concept is a widely accepted approach to defining species. The Act's use of the phrase “interbreeds when mature” reflects this understanding. Use of this phrase with respect to a DPS is simply intended to mean that a DPS must be comprised of members of the same species or subspecies. As long as this requirement is met, a DPS may include multiple populations of vertebrate organisms even if they may not actually interbreed with each other. For example, a DPS may consist of multiple populations of a fish species separated into different drainages. While these populations may not actually interbreed with each other, their members are biologically capable of interbreeding.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Service published a joint Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act (DPS Policy on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). According to the DPS Policy, two elements must be satisfied in order for a population segment to qualify as a possible DPS: discreteness and significance. If the population segment qualifies as a DPS, the conservation status of that DPS is then evaluated to determine whether it is endangered or threatened.
A population segment of a vertebrate species 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 Act.
If a population is found to be discrete, then it is evaluated for significance under the DPS Policy on the basis of its importance to the taxon to which it belongs. This consideration may include, but is not limited to, the following: (1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique to the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon; (3) evidence that the population represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside of its historical range; or (4) evidence that the population differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
If a population segment is both discrete and significant (
We were petitioned to list collectively two groups of the Pacific marten (two populations in Oregon and one in California) that are currently recognized as belonging to two separate subspecies (as described above). To ensure that we evaluated the most accurate listable entity based on the best scientific and commercial data currently available (including unpublished genetics information), we published a scoping notice in the
We received eight comment letters from six entities in response to our June 23, 2014, scoping notice. Four entities agreed with our proposed DPS, one was silent, and one disagreed with our evaluation of a coastal DPS of the Pacific marten as the listable entity; two entities commented twice reiterating their same positions. The commenter who disagreed with the proposed coastal DPS of the Pacific marten as the listable entity believed more information, including genetics, would be required and that the entity we proposed would not be a valid DPS according to Service criteria. Following publication of the scoping notice in the
After taking into consideration the comments received and conducting further evaluation of the best available scientific and commercial information (including additional genetics information), we confirm here that this DPS is a listable entity, including the currently recognized
(1) The best available data (
(2) Existing genetics information (Slauson
(3) The DPS Policy (February 7, 1996; 61 FR 4722) states that the population segment under consideration must be evaluated for discreteness and significance in relation to the remainder of the taxon to which it belongs. Ordinarily, in the present case we would evaluate the marten populations relative to the subspecies to which they belong, but the populations in question currently represent two separate subspecies and there is uncertainty as to the legitimacy of those subspecies classifications, rendering such an evaluation invalid.
(4) Uncertainty in the subspecies-level taxonomy of Pacific marten logically necessitates that we elevate our evaluation of the DPS relative to the Pacific marten at the full species level. In other words, we apply the criteria for evaluating a coastal DPS of the Pacific marten relative to the full species Pacific marten (
(5) The DPS Policy (February 7, 1996; 61 FR 4722) states that “In all cases, the organisms in a population are members of a single species or lesser taxon.” Therefore, given (1) through (4) above, an evaluation at the species level is appropriate. Consequently, for purposes of this Finding, below we evaluate the Pacific marten populations that occur in coastal Oregon and coastal northern California under our DPS Policy.
For this 12-month finding and DPS analysis of the Pacific marten populations that occur in coastal Oregon and coastal northern California, we reviewed and evaluated all available published and unpublished information, including numerous publications, reports, and other data submitted by the public. Marten distribution in coastal northern California and coastal Oregon is discussed in detail in the “Species Distribution” section of the Species Report titled “Coastal Oregon and Northern Coastal California populations of the Pacific marten (
Under the DPS Policy, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions:
(1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation.
(2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. As the marten populations in question here do not transcend an international boundary, this criterion does not apply.
As described below, the Pacific marten populations that occur in coastal Oregon and coastal northern California are markedly separated from other Pacific marten populations by geographical isolation (
(1) Most juvenile marten dispersal distances (that are published in literature) in both logged and unlogged forests range from less than or equal to 5 km (3.1 mi) (Broquet
(2) Pacific martens within the three extant populations in coastal Oregon and coastal northern California likely only need to disperse short distances to establish a home range because there are typically sufficient amounts of unoccupied suitable habitat available within their natal area.
(3) Large patches of unsuitable habitat on the eastern edge of the historical range in this region would likely deter juvenile martens from moving east. As described below in the section
The coastal Oregon and coastal northern California populations of Pacific martens are also markedly separated from other populations of the Pacific marten as evidenced by quantitative measures of genetic discontinuity. The Humboldt marten was historically distributed throughout the coastal coniferous forests of northern California from northwestern Sonoma County northward to the Oregon border (Grinnell
In summary, the best available information indicates that Pacific marten populations in coastal Oregon and coastal northern California are geographically isolated and genetically discrete from all other populations of the Pacific marten. Therefore, the marked separation condition for discreteness under our DPS Policy is met.
If a population segment is considered discrete under one or more of the conditions described in the Service's DPS Policy, its biological and ecological significance will be considered in light of Congressional guidance that the authority to list DPSs be used “sparingly” (see Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session) while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity. In making this determination, we consider available scientific evidence of the DPS's importance to the taxon to which it belongs.
Because precise circumstances are likely to vary considerably from case to case, the DPS Policy does not describe all the classes of information that might be used in determining the biological and ecological importance of a discrete population. However, the DPS Policy describes four possible classes of information that provide evidence of a population segment's biological and ecological importance (significance) to the taxon to which it belongs. This consideration of the population segment's significance may include, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique to the taxon;
(2) Evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon;
(3) Evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range; or
(4) Evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
To be considered significant, a population segment needs to satisfy only one of these conditions. Other classes of information that might bear on the biological and ecological importance of a discrete population segment may also be used as appropriate, to provide evidence for significance, as described in the DPS Policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). At least two of the significance criteria are met for the marten populations in coastal Oregon and coastal northern California. First, we find that populations of Pacific martens in coastal Oregon and coastal northern California differ markedly from other populations of the Pacific marten species in their genetic characteristics. As described above under “Discreteness,” the coastal Oregon and coastal northern California populations of Pacific martens are genetically distinct from all other populations of Pacific martens (Schwartz
As stated above under
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, biophysical environment, habitat use, distributions, and population abundance/trends of the coastal DPS of Pacific marten is presented in the Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 1-40) available on the Internet at
Two species of marten, divided into 14 total subspecies, inhabit North America. Collectively, North American martens are characterized by the long and narrow body type typical of the mustelid family (Mustelidae;
Marten activity patterns coincide with their prey species availability. Specifically, martens are active year-round and seasonally adjust their activity patterns to synchronize with those of their key prey species (Zielinski
Information on coastal marten reproduction and survivorship is lacking; therefore our analysis is based on knowledge of North American martens in general, which are polygamous mammals. Female martens mate no sooner than 15 months of age and first litters are produced no sooner than 24 months of age (Strickland
Juvenile dispersal of the American marten is generally thought to occur as early as August, although fall, winter, and spring (the year after birth) dispersal periods have been reported (Clark and Campbell 1976, p. 294; Slough 1989, p. 993). Juvenile dispersal in coastal northern California and Sierra Nevada martens has been observed to occur as early as August and continues at least until the following summer season (Slauson and Zielinski 2014, unpubl. data). Information is not available regarding the timing of juvenile dispersal for coastal martens in Oregon. Pauli
Intraguild predation and interspecific competition occurs naturally within the range of the coastal DPS of Pacific marten. Intraguild predation refers to killing and eating of potential competitors that utilize the same prey resources. Interspecific competition is a form of competition in which individuals of a different species compete for the same resource in an ecosystem (as opposed to intraspecific competition that involves organisms of the same species). Martens are susceptible to predation by larger mammalian and avian predators, typically habitat-generalist species, including coyote (
The preferred habitat type for the coastal DPS of Pacific marten occurs in some of the most productive forests in the world. In unmanaged, late-seral stages, these forests are typically composed of long-lived, large trees, with multi-layered canopy structure, substantial large woody debris (standing and downed), and abundant ferns, herbs, and shrubs on the forest floor (Sawyer
A dense understory of shrubs and herbaceous plants are a key habitat requirement for the coastal marten (see “Habitat Use” section of the Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 18-27)). Species presence and dominance is shaped largely by the combination of soil nutrients and moisture, with herbaceous species such as sword fern (
Two additional, rare forest habitats are of particular relevance to coastal martens: Coastal serpentine and coastal dune forest. Forests in serpentine habitats are typically open and rocky with stunted trees that contrast sharply with the dense, rapidly-growing stands on more productive, non-serpentine soils that surround these sites (Jimerson
Coastal martens select habitat at four primary spatial scales: Micro-scale (resting and denning structures), stand-scale, home range, and landscape-scale (facilitating movement, occupancy, and population dynamics).
(1) Micro-scale—Rest structures are used daily by martens between foraging bouts to provide thermoregulatory benefits and protection from predators (Taylor and Buskirk 1994, pp. 253-255). Reuse rates for individual rest structures are low and selection for structure type changes seasonally to meet thermoregulatory needs (
(2) Stand-scale—Martens select forest stands that provide habitat structure supporting one or more life history needs that include foraging, resting, or denning. Coastal martens in California most strongly selected stands of old-growth, conifer-dominated forests with dense shrub layers (Slauson
(3) Home Range—Pacific and American martens exhibit strong habitat selection at the home range scale, suggesting that this scale of selection most directly influences an individual's fitness (Thompson
(4) Landscape-scale—The pattern and composition of habitat at this scale affects: (a) The ability of martens to successfully disperse and find suitable home ranges; (b) survival and species occurrence over time and space; and (c) ultimately, population size and persistence. Successful dispersal requires the existence of functional habitat connectivity between patches of habitat suitable for reproduction to maintain or expand population size and distribution. Also, during dispersal, martens use a search strategy that is not random or linear, suggesting they are responding to habitat cues and that landscape pattern likely influences movement trajectories (Johnson 2008, pp. 27-29, 36-39). Compared to other species closely associated with late-successional forest, American and Pacific marten populations, including the coastal marten, are sensitive to the loss or fragmentation of high-quality habitat at the landscape scale. For example, martens exhibit a progression of responses to timber harvest as the proportion of habitat affected by intensive logging activities increases. Such activities include, but are not limited to, clear cutting (see review in Thompson
At the time of European settlement, the coastal marten occurred in all coastal Oregon counties and the coastal northern counties of California within late-successional coniferous forests. The majority of historical (pre-1980) verifiable marten detections (
Unregulated fur trapping occurred throughout the coastal marten's historical range, and by the late 1920s, few marten were captured where they were once considered relatively abundant (Zielinski and Golightly 1996, entire). A marked decline in the number of coastal marten harvested in coastal northern California led to the closure of marten trapping in northwestern California in 1946. In Oregon, marten fur trapping remains legal Statewide. Historical fur trapping is thought to have resulted in a significant contraction of coastal marten distribution and the extirpation of coastal marten from large portions of its historical range. Although we can make conclusions about the general historical distribution of coastal martens, information on historical population size is not available, thus precluding an accurate assessment of the impact of unregulated trapping on coastal marten population abundance.
Due to the lack of surveys for coastal martens, little information is available regarding their current distribution; this is particularly true for coastal Oregon. We do know, however, that there are at least three extant populations of coastal martens, one in coastal northern California, one in coastal southern Oregon, and one in coastal central Oregon, as described in detail below, and we have information regarding the extent of suitable habitat that is currently available to coastal martens throughout their range. It is therefore possible that coastal martens may occur in any of these areas of suitable habitat that have not been surveyed, or have been surveyed only sporadically. Here we briefly describe the areas of suitable habitat available to coastal martens.
Slauson
Model results indicate that approximately 41 percent of the coastal marten's historical range contain suitable habitat (described as low, medium, and high suitability habitat) for coastal martens (see “Current Landscape Habitat Suitability” section of the Species Report). The model identified approximately 59 percent of the remaining lands within the historical range of the coastal marten to be unsuitable, which includes (but is not limited to) forested habitat that is not utilized by martens (
Much of the coastal marten's historical habitat has been lost. Extensive logging of old-growth redwood habitat in coastal northern California began in the late 1800s, and coincided with unregulated fur trapping. Late-successional coniferous forests in coastal Oregon were also extensively harvested in the early 1900s. Currently, less than 5 percent of the redwood forests existing at the time of European settlement remain within the
Within the coastal marten's historical range, the majority of remaining late-successional coniferous forests suitable for the coastal marten is within national forests, and national and State parks. Where martens are known to occur, relatively high amounts of moderate- to high-suitability habitat are still found, and much of this habitat occurs in areas that are managed for the maintenance or enhancement of late-successional forest conditions that are beneficial to coastal martens. For example, approximately 71, 79, and 90 percent of the total available suitable habitat on Federal lands in the coastal central Oregon, coastal southern Oregon, and coastal northern California population areas, respectively, occur within the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Federal reserve lands, which are designed to retain and accelerate the development of late seral characteristics. Currently, the largest contiguous blocks of suitable coastal marten habitat occur within the Six Rivers National Forest in the extreme northern portion of the historical range in California, and in the adjacent Siskiyou portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest in the southern portion of the historical range in Oregon. Large blocks of suitable habitat also occur in coastal central Oregon on the Siuslaw National Forest. Little suitable habitat is currently found in the southern half of the historical range in California. In the coastal northern portion of the historical range in Oregon, suitable habitat is limited to a narrow band along the coast. Finally, in the area between the Siskiyou and Siuslaw National Forests in the historical range in Oregon, there is some limited amount of suitable habitat on BLM ownership. Habitat conditions specific to each of the known extant population areas of coastal martens are discussed below.
There are three known extant populations of coastal martens in coastal central Oregon, coastal southern Oregon, and coastal northern California, according to the best available scientific and commercial data (Figure 1; see section 8.1.2 (Delineation of Extant Population Areas) of the Species Report (Service 2015, p. 32)). These populations have been described as disjunct (
This 4,150-km
This population area comprises approximately 20 percent coastal marten habitat of high suitability, 36 percent of moderate suitability, 22 percent of low suitability (which has low probability of coastal marten occurrence currently and into the future), and 21 percent unsuitable (Slauson
Population abundance information is not available for the coastal central Oregon population of coastal martens. Although only a single station had been surveyed in this population area since the late 1980s, presence/absence surveys began in this area in the summer of 2014. One marten was detected in 2014 (Slauson
Abundance or trend information is not available for any populations of coastal martens in Oregon. Although researchers note that martens in this area have likely declined relative to their historical condition, they cite to insufficient historical or contemporary data to allow evaluation of the status of martens in the coastal mountain ranges of central and northern Oregon (Zielinski
This 4,696-km
This population area comprises approximately 52 percent coastal marten habitat of high suitability, 26 percent of moderate suitability, 17 percent of low suitability, and 5 percent unsuitable (Slauson
Similar to the situation for the coastal central Oregon population, described above, population abundance information is not available for the coastal southern Oregon population of coastal martens. Although extensive grid-based surveys (which are used to estimate marten abundance or presence/absence) have not been conducted for this population, grid-based surveys began in this area in the summer of 2014. No coastal martens were detected in 2014 (Slauson
This 812-km
This population area comprises approximately 67 percent coastal marten habitat of high suitability, 14 percent of moderate suitability, 7 percent of low suitability, and 12 percent unsuitable (Slauson
As reported in 1996 by Zielinski and Golightly (1996, entire), this coastal northern California population has apparently recovered from numbers that were once so low (in the 50 years prior to 1995) that it was considered to be extremely rare or extinct. Martens in coastal northern California were first surveyed to estimate abundance in 2000-2001, and again in 2008 (Slauson
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species based on any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
In making this finding, information pertaining to the coastal DPS of the Pacific marten in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below. In considering what factors might constitute threats to a species, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to a particular factor to evaluate whether the species may respond to that factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to determine if that factor rises to the level of a threat, meaning that it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species as those terms are defined in the Act. However, the identification of factors that could impact a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that the species warrants listing. The information must include evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors are operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act.
Potential stressors that may impact coastal martens in coastal Oregon and coastal northern California include actions that may affect marten individuals or populations (
To assess the stressor of wildfire, we used a longer future period consisting of 30 years based on more extensive data available regarding wildfires from the past approximate 30 years. This information was used to predict the future equivalent level of expected fire frequency, size, and severity. Using a longer foreseeable future timeframe for wildfire better incorporates the range of fire-related activity that may occur within the coastal Oregon and coastal northern California population areas. To assess the stressor of climate change, we used a longer foreseeable future period of 40-50 years, which coincides with the model projection timeframes available for climate change (
A thorough review of each of the potential stressors is presented in the Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 41-78), which is available on the Internet
Each potential stressor was evaluated to determine the likely impact to coastal martens or their habitat.
• A low-level impact indicates: (1) Individual martens in one or more populations may be impacted, but not at the population level; or (2) minimal loss, degradation, or fragmentation of suitable habitat.
• A medium-level impact indicates: (1) Individual martens in one or more populations are being impacted, likely resulting in a population-level impact; or (2) moderate loss, degradation, or fragmentation of suitable habitat.
• A high-level impact indicates: (1) Individual martens in one or more populations are being impacted, likely resulting in a significant population-level impact; or (2) significant loss, degradation, or fragmentation of suitable habitat.
Wildfire can impact individual coastal martens directly through mortality (Factor E); however, fires generally kill or injure a relatively small proportion of animal populations, particularly if they are mobile (Lyon
Wildfire is a major disturbance force of habitat within the range of the coastal marten in all but the wettest coastal forests and thus has been analyzed in terms of its effect on coastal marten habitat. Wildfire can affect the composition and structural characteristics of the forest communities at multiple spatial and temporal scales. Fire severity is often expressed in categories of high, medium, or low severity, as well as mixed severity. High-severity fire, also called stand-replacing fire, kills all or nearly all vegetation within a stand and may extend across a landscape (Jain
Regional moisture gradients result in wildfires occurring more frequently with increasing distance from the coast and farther south in the coastal marten's range. The effect of fire on coastal marten habitat varies from high-severity fires that consume much or all of the structural features (
Historical fire records indicate that, compared to the coastal central Oregon population area, the coastal northern California and coastal southern Oregon population areas (including adjacent or intervening areas) have experienced larger and more severe wildfires (Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (MTBS; 2013, entire), both also experiencing many small (less than 0.4 hectares (ha) (1 acre (ac)) fires. The potential for severe, stand-replacing wildfire has increased in some areas where fire suppression and regeneration timber harvest (
The best available historical fire information and the more xeric nature (
It is possible that fire frequency, size, and severity may increase in the future within coastal Oregon (both central and southern) and coastal northern California, based on projected increases in temperature and decreased precipitation (see “Climate Change,” below), with potentially greater
In our initial development of the Species Report, we identified an overall low-level impact across the northern portion of the coastal marten's range, and a medium-level impact across the southern portion of the coastal marten's range (see section 9.2.3.1 in the Species Report). These overall impact levels were based on the probability of occurrence of a wildfire over a 15-year time period. When considering historical fire data over a 30-year time period to predict the future equivalent level of expected fire frequency, size, and severity (see Appendix A in the Species Report), the overall level of impact (
Based on the analysis contained within the Species Report and summarized above, we expect that within the range of the coastal marten, the incidence of wildfire in the future will be similar to that recorded for 1984 to 2012. We note, however, that high-severity fires have been infrequent in the past and are considered to remain infrequent, overall, into the future. Our expectation is that fire frequency, size, and severity in the future will be fairly similar (or slightly higher in some areas based on climate change predictions). Based on these 30 years (
(1) The persistence of moderate- and high-quality habitat that has remained following recent large wildfires (
(2) The overall continued presence of relatively moist habitat conditions for coastal marten habitat, primarily along the western coast, including overall cooler, moist summer conditions that moderate the dry conditions that promote fire ignition and spread.
(3) Information indicating that parts of coastal northern California and coastal southern Oregon have experienced fire suppression with little effect on altering the structure and composition of the dominant forest types, and no increase in high-severity fire compared to the historical patterns (Odion
“Climate” refers to the mean and variability of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or longer periods also may be used (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2013, p. 1,450). The term “climate change” thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or more measures of climate (
Changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant considerations, such as interactions of climate with other variables (
Global climate projections are informative, and in some cases, the only scientific information available. However, projected changes in climate and related impacts can vary substantially across and within different regions of the world (
Climate throughout the range of the coastal marten is projected over the next approximately 40 to 50 years to become warmer, and in particular summers will be hotter and drier, with more frequent heat waves (Pierce
In coastal central and northern Oregon, models also project shifts by the end of this century in vegetation type from maritime conifer forest toward mixed conifer-hardwood and deciduous forests, although models differ in the extent of this change (Whitlock
We note that redwood forest habitat within coastal national and State parks to the west of the coastal northern California population area may remain suitable for coastal martens even with projected changes in climate (based on a moderate emissions scenario within 50 years; DellaSala 2013, entire). However, to reach this coastal redwood habitat, martens would need to traverse many kilometers of unsuitable habitat (
Overall, studies of climate change present a range of effects on vegetation, including some that indicate conditions could remain suitable for coastal martens in portions of the coastal range; furthermore, the severity of potential impacts to coastal marten habitat will likely vary across the range, with effects to coastal martens potentially ranging from negative, neutral, or beneficial. Thus, the Species Report described an estimated range of low- to medium-impact for this stressor for coastal southern Oregon and coastal northern California (Service 205, pp. 67-72). Modeling projections are done at a large scale, and effects to species' habitat can be complex, unpredictable, and highly influenced by local-level biotic and abiotic factors. Although many climate models generally agree about the changes in temperature and precipitation, the consequent effects on vegetation are more uncertain, as is the rate at which any such changes might be realized. Therefore, it is not clear how or when changes in forest type and plant species composition will affect the distribution of coastal marten habitat. How any such changes may in turn affect coastal marten populations is even more uncertain. Thus, uncertainty exists when determining the level of impact climate change may have on coastal marten habitat. Consequently, at this time and based on the analysis contained within the Species Report and summarized above, we have determined that we do not have reliable information to indicate that climate change is a threat to coastal marten habitat now or in the future, although we will continue to seek additional information concerning how climate change may affect coastal marten habitat.
Vegetation management includes activities such as timber harvest, thinning, fuels reduction, and habitat restoration, which can result in the temporary or permanent loss, degradation, or fragmentation of suitable coastal marten habitat. Once lost, structural elements found in suitable coastal marten habitat that are required for denning and resting (such as large diameter live trees, snags, and logs) require more than a century to develop (Slauson and Zielinski 2009, p. 43). Slauson (2014, pers. comm.) anticipates that loss of the dense, shade-tolerant shrub layer required by the coastal marten would take 1 to 2 decades to regrow.
Historically, vegetation management activities (particularly large-scale harvest of late-successional coniferous forest habitat) reduced the amount and distribution of suitable coastal marten habitat. At the present time, although the reduction and fragmentation of some suitable coastal marten habitat is expected to continue, the majority of suitable habitat for coastal martens is currently secure and expected to increase in the future. Habitat loss and degradation is expected to be realized primarily on private lands, which constitute a relatively small proportion of the suitable habitat available to martens in the three extant population areas (23 percent in coastal central Oregon, 10 percent in coastal southern Oregon, and 11 percent in coastal northern California). In contrast, most suitable marten habitat is in Federal ownership (71 percent in the coastal central Oregon population area, 90 percent in the coastal southern Oregon population area, and 77 percent in the coastal northern California population area), and the majority of those lands are in reserve allocations under the NWFP, which are managed for the maintenance or development of late-successional forest characteristics (71 percent of Federal lands in reserves in coastal central Oregon, 79 percent of Federal lands in reserves in coastal southern Oregon, and 90 percent of Federal lands in reserves in coastal northern California). We therefore expect not only the maintenance but further recruitment of suitable coastal marten
Some vegetation management activities (such as thinning, fuels reduction projects, and habitat restoration) have the potential to improve habitat suitability for the coastal marten in the long term by minimizing loss of late-successional stands due to wildfires and accelerating the development of late-seral characteristics (Zielinski 2013, pp. 419-422). This has been suggested for a similar mustelid, the fisher, where such activities may be consistent with maintaining landscapes that support fishers in the long term and sometimes even the short term, providing treatments retain appropriate habitat structures, composition, and configuration (Spencer
On lands managed for industrial timber harvest, the past and current practice of managing coastal coniferous forests on a short-rotation system (40-60 years) to maximize wood production has reduced the complexity of the shrub and herb layers, which are important components of suitable marten habitat. These management practices have also precluded development of late-successional forest characteristics that are important to the coastal marten (such as large diameter logs, snags, and trees). Short-rotation forestry is prevalent on private lands, whereas only a small fraction of forested Federal lands (
Due to current and expected future intensive timber-harvesting activities, we do not anticipate that private lands would support viable marten populations or maintain important habitat elements in the future. Instead, the coastal marten relies on (and our analysis considers) the maintenance of suitable coastal marten habitat on Federal and State lands as the key element to support the long-term viability of coastal marten populations. Of the coastal marten suitable habitat within the three extant population areas, from 71 to 90 percent is on Federal lands and in reserve status under the NWFP, much of which is managed specifically for the development of late-successional characteristics that will be beneficial for coastal martens. Specifically, and at present:
(1) In the coastal central Oregon extant population area, 79 percent of the habitat is considered suitable for coastal martens (56 percent moderate to high suitability). Approximately 71 percent of the moderate- to high-suitability habitat occurs within Federal ownership, and 71 percent of that is Federal Reserve land.
(2) In the coastal southern Oregon extant population area, 95 percent of the habitat is considered suitable for coastal martens (78 percent moderate to high suitability). Approximately 90 percent of the moderate- to high-suitability habitat is in Federal ownership, and 79 percent of that is Federal Reserve land.
(3) In the coastal northern California extant population area, 87 percent of the habitat is considered suitable habitat for coastal martens (81 percent moderate to high suitability). Approximately 77 percent of that is in Federal ownership, and 90 percent of that is Federal Reserve land.
A small proportion of the moderate- and high-suitability habitat occurs on Federal matrix lands (
Based on the analysis contained within the Species Report and summarized above, including the proportion of moderate- and high-suitability coastal marten habitat available and the favorably managed forested lands (primarily Federal Reserves) within each extant population area, we consider ongoing vegetation management to have a low impact on the loss, degradation, or fragmentation of suitable coastal marten habitat across the range of the DPS both currently and into the future. We note that loss of suitable habitat (primarily low-quality suitable habitat) is expected to continue to occur into the future on private lands within all three population areas, potentially to a greater extent in the coastal central Oregon population area due to a larger percentage of privately-owned timber lands within that population area. For the entire range, we considered vegetation management as a low-level impact on moderate and high suitability marten habitat for Federal lands, which constitute a majority of the extant population areas, have longer harvest rotations, and retain more structural features on the subset of that area in matrix, or where habitat will be retained on lands in Federal Reserves. In addition, because of the extent of Federal reserve land allocations that are designed to maintain and develop late-successional conditions, an unquantifiable amount of suitable habitat for coastal martens is expected to develop in the future. Overall, potential impacts from vegetation management do not rise to the level of a threat given the extensive beneficial land management practices expected to continue into the future (15 years) on public lands.
Some impacts to suitable habitat are expected to occur within the range of the coastal marten as a result of development activities such as road building, dam construction and creation of new reservoirs, conversion of forest habitat for agricultural use, development and expansion of recreational areas (
In Oregon, the greatest rates of change from resource land use to more developed use occurred prior to 1984, before implementation of county land-use plans and land-use planning laws (Oregon Administrative Rule 660-015-00) that limit the conversion of designated resource lands, including forest lands, to other uses (Lettman
Based on the analysis contained within the Species Report and summarized above, and similar to the vegetation management discussion above, we estimate that development has a low impact on the loss, degradation, or fragmentation of suitable coastal marten habitat across the range of the DPS both currently and into the future, and thus does not rise to the level of a threat. If development occurs, the frequency and amount of habitat impacted may be greater in the coastal central Oregon population area as opposed to the other two population areas due to a larger percentage of privately-owned timber lands within the coastal central Oregon population area. However, as exhibited over the past 30 years, any loss is expected to be small.
Historical unregulated fur trapping (prior to the 1930s) of coastal martens is considered by researchers as the likely cause of the marked contraction in coastal marten distribution. Legal marten fur trapping in coastal northern California ended in 1946. However, fur trapping remains legal and has continued in Oregon, and the number of martens harvested in coastal Oregon counties has declined since the 1940s (Zielinski
Based on the analysis contained within the Species Report and summarized above, we consider the legal fur trapping of coastal martens as having no overall impact to the population in coastal northern California, as there is no legal fur trapping for martens in that State. Fur trapping effort for martens in Oregon is relatively minimal, and most martens harvested are not trapped in the coast ranges. We estimate a low- to medium-level of impact to the two extant populations in coastal Oregon, reflecting the uncertainty regarding the size of those populations. We estimate that the impacts of fur trapping on coastal martens in Oregon will continue at a similar level, both currently and into the future, because the best available data do not suggest that either fur trapping effort or impacts are likely to change. Additionally, of note for California, we expect that nearly all coastal martens that are accidentally captured in box traps (body-gripping traps are illegal in California) set for other furbearer species, or that are live-trapped for research purposes, will be released unharmed. As a result of this best available information for Oregon and California, we have determined that fur trapping, overall, does not have a significant population-level impact across the DPS's range and does not rise to the level of a threat.
Based on the analysis contained within the Species Report, we consider the potential impacts of live-trapping and handling for research purposes on coastal marten populations as discountable. We came to this conclusion based on the limited distribution of marten research projects in the three extant population areas (currently only a single project in the western half of the coastal northern California population area where no martens were injured or killed during live-trapping), and based on the strict trapping and handling protocols that must be adhered to by coastal marten researchers to ensure the safety of study animals. Available information does not suggest that there would be any change to the level of anticipated impacts of live-trapping and handling for research purposes into the future, and, therefore, we find that the potential impacts to the coastal marten from trapping for research purposes do not rise to the level of a threat.
Numerous pathogens (
An outbreak of a lethal pathogen within any of the three extant coastal marten populations could occur. Several serious pathogens have been detected in the related fisher less than 9 km (5.6 mi) from the nearest verifiable marten detection within the coastal northern California population (Brown
The best available data do not indicate that disease has impacted coastal martens at any point in time in the past or currently. The prevalence of past exposure to lethal pathogens within the coastal northern California population and the coastal Oregon populations has not been demonstrated through a serosurvey (
In sum, there are currently no indications of disease in coastal marten populations. If an outbreak of a serious disease should occur, it could have a significant impact on the affected population. However, based upon the best available scientific and commercial data as presented in the Species Report and summarized here, there is a low probability that a disease outbreak may occur. We anticipate that if there should be an outbreak, it will likely have a low effect on all three coastal marten populations combined, as the distance between them makes it unlikely that the effects of such an outbreak would spread. Thus, we have determined that disease has a low-level population impact across the coastal marten's range and, therefore, does not rise to the level of a threat currently or into the future.
Predation is a natural ongoing source of mortality for the coastal marten and would not be expected to negatively impact the viability of marten populations in coastal Oregon and coastal northern California unless annual predation rates, combined with all other mortality sources, exceed annual juvenile coastal marten recruitment rates (estimated at 50 percent for the coastal marten; Slauson
(1) Strickland
(2) Bull and Heater (2001a, p. 3) conducted a study in northeastern Oregon and documented 18 martens (
Historical coastal marten predation rates are unknown, although the historical assemblage of predator species was likely similar to the current assemblage. It is possible that human-caused changes in vegetation composition, vegetation distribution, and extensive road building over time have increased predator densities and distribution within the range of the coastal marten. These changes in vegetation and infrastructure provide more access and avenues in which predators can exploit their prey base, especially in forested areas that were once undisturbed with extensive shrub cover for prey, such as martens, to escape or find shelter. For example, in coastal northern California, fisher and gray fox have both maintained their interior distributions but appear to have expanded their distributions in coastal redwood forest habitat concurrently with the dramatic decline in the distribution of coastal martens (Slauson and Zielinski 2007, p. 242). Another recent study within coastal northern California suggests that bobcats and gray foxes frequent roads in forests dominated by redwoods (Slauson and Zielinski 2010, pp. 77-78); the same is likely true for other forest types throughout the DPS's historical range in coastal Oregon and coastal northern California, but has not been confirmed. Slauson and Zielinski (2010, pp. 77-78) indicate that roads may be facilitating the presence and abundance of these predator species in dense-shrub landscapes and increasing the risk of intraguild predation on coastal martens. Therefore, past logging practices that reduced the complexity of the herb and shrub layers, in combination with existing roads, may have facilitated an increase in the distribution of predators within the range of coastal marten, thus potentially increasing the likelihood that coastal martens could encounter a predator.
Predation of coastal martens has been studied recently. Since the fall of 2012, researchers have radio-tracked up to 23 coastal martens within the western portion of the coastal northern California extant population area to determine survival rates and cause of death. Data indicate a total of nine coastal marten mortalities, all killed by bobcats (Slauson
Predation is identified as a natural stressor (
The population-level impact of predation within the three coastal marten extant population areas is currently unknown. Data are available only for the coastal northern California population where a sample of 23 individuals were radio-tracked and 9 of those were found predated upon by bobcats, indicating a 33 percent predation rate (Slauson
As noted above, a 33 percent annual predation rate is expected to be sustainable when compared with an annual juvenile coastal marten survival rate of 50 percent; thus, predation would not likely result in a population-level impact. Therefore, based on the best available data, we find that predation has a low-level population impact for all three extant coastal marten populations. The best available data indicate that predation is a natural process and the level of predation is not expected to increase in the future. Based on the analysis contained within the Species Report and summarized above, we have determined that predation does not rise to the level of a threat, given that it is a natural phenomenon and appears to be occurring at a sustainable level.
Existing regulatory mechanisms that affect coastal martens include laws and regulations promulgated by the Federal and individual State governments. Federal and State agencies manage approximately 31 and 5 percent, respectively, of the lands within the coastal marten's range, including a total of approximately 57 percent (13,388 km
All Forest Service and BLM lands within the range of the coastal marten are managed under the NWFP, which was adopted in 1994, to guide the management of 97,124 km
The coastal marten is currently treated differently on Federal lands in Oregon as compared to California. In Oregon, the coastal marten is not considered a sensitive species on Forest Service and BLM lands. However, the Forest Service (Region 6) has added the marten to its draft sensitive species list that is expected to be finalized in 2015 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2014, p. 5), and BLM (Medford and Roseburg Districts) is also working to add the marten to its sensitive species lists (Hughes 2015, pers. comm.). In California, the coastal marten is a sensitive species on Forest Service lands, but not on BLM lands. Federal protections afforded the coastal marten as a sensitive species on Forest Service lands in California largely depend on best management practices and conservation efforts outlined in their Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs), and on-site-specific project analyses and implementation.
Potential exposure of coastal martens to ARs has not yet been studied, but to date we have incidental evidence of sublethal exposure in at least one individual (see “Exposure to Toxicants” under
The Forest Service has extensive policy on the use of rodenticides (Forest Service Manual 2670.32), and the Forest Service Manual (Forest Service 2005, Chapter 2600) contains legal authorities, objectives, policies, responsibilities, instructions, and guidance needed on a continuing basis by Forest Service line officers and primary staff to plan and execute assigned programs and activities. In addition, BLM policy (BLM Manual 9011-Chemical Pest Control) regulates the use of rodenticides and other pesticides on their ownership. Queries to the BLM and Forest Service in Oregon confirm they do not use anticoagulant rodenticides on their ownership, although some use of strychnine for rodent control is employed on Forest Service land (Standley 2013, pers. comm.; Bautista 2013, pers. comm.).
Forest practice rules vary greatly between Oregon and California, with no explicitly stated coastal marten protections specified in either State. However, retention of some number of snags and green trees in harvest units is a ubiquitous requirement in managed forests throughout the range of the coastal marten (State, Federal, and private lands) (
Structures that are retained (
Protection measures for riparian areas are also a widespread standard on managed forests throughout the range of the coastal marten, with larger buffers and more stringent timber retention requirements typically provided on Federal and State lands as compared to private lands. Retention areas to meet other management goals are also found across ownerships (
Coastal martens can be legally harvested/trapped for fur in Oregon but not in California (see “Trapping” under
Overall, existing Federal and State land-use plans include some general conservation measures for northern spotted owl habitat that are not specific to coastal martens but nonetheless provide a benefit to the coastal marten, for example through the maintenance and recruitment of late-successional forest and old-growth habitat. Most management plans address structural habitat features (
Based on the analyses contained within the Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 81-94) and summarized above on the existing regulatory mechanisms for the coastal marten, we conclude that the best available scientific and commercial information does not indicate that the existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to address impacts to coastal martens from the identified stressors.
Collision with vehicles is a known source of mortality for coastal martens currently and is expected to continue into the future, given the presence of roads within the range of the DPS. A low density of roads with heavy traffic traveling at high speeds (greater than 45 miles per hour) and infrequent reports of road-killed martens within all three
No coastal marten road kill mortalities have been reported recently (since 1980) from within the coastal southern Oregon and coastal northern California population areas, both of which are areas that do not contain long segments of heavily used highway (although it is possible that road kill on any light-use roads in remote areas may not be discovered by humans before being consumed as carrion). A total of 14 coastal marten mortalities have been documented from vehicle collision since 1980 (over a 34-year period) within or near the coastal central Oregon population area, suggesting a low annual mortality rate from vehicle collisions. Collisions with vehicles were and continue to be expected within the coastal central Oregon population because of the presence of U.S. Highway 101 within this population.
We expect that in the future a small number of coastal martens will be struck by vehicles, especially dispersing juvenile coastal martens that must reach unoccupied suitable habitat for establishment of a home range. However, the best available information does not suggest any significant increases in vehicular traffic or new highways (consistent with the information available on potential development-related impacts (see “Development” under
An emerging stressor to coastal martens is the widespread use of anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs) and other pesticides (
Anticoagulant rodenticides were created to kill small mammals considered pests, including commensal rodents such as house mice (
Anticoagulant rodenticide exposure is manifested by such conditions as bleeding nose and gums, extensive bruises, anemia, fatigue, and difficulty breathing. Anticoagulants also damage the small blood vessels, resulting in spontaneous and widespread hemorrhaging. There is often a lag time of several days between ingestion and death, if lethal doses are ingested (Berny 2007, pp. 97-98; Roberts and Reigart 2013, pp. 174-175). Evidence from laboratory and field studies for several mammalian and avian species suggests that various pesticide (including rodenticide) exposures:
(1) Reduce immune system function (Repetto and Baliga 1996, pp. 17-37; Li and Kawada 2006, entire; Zabrodskii
(2) Are associated with a higher prevalence of infectious disease (Riley
(3) Cause transient hypothermia (Ahdaya
(4) Possibly impair an animal's ability to recover from physical injury (Erickson and Urban 2004, pp. 90, 100, 184, 188, 190-191).
Exposure to ARs, resulting in death in some cases, is documented in many mammalian predators (
Little information exists specific to coastal marten exposure or response to ARs. Coastal martens within the California population and likely the coastal Oregon populations may be exposed to ARs currently or in the future in those areas where marijuana grow sites are located (which currently is known to be a fraction of the coastal marten's range) based on: (1) The proximity of the closely related fisher with confirmed exposure to ARs, including in areas as close as 9 km (5.6 mi) from the coastal northern California population; (2) the broad use of ARs at illegal marijuana cultivation sites, which have been documented to occur within or adjacent to portions of both the marten's coastal northern California and coastal southern Oregon population areas; and (3) the potential continued use of ARs at legal grow sites and other areas within the range of the coastal marten where agricultural pesticide use
Overall, illegal and legal marijuana cultivation sites (and use of ARs and other pesticides) are present within or near all three coastal marten populations, although the probability of exposure varies between them. At this time we estimate that the prevalence of illegal marijuana cultivation sites (based on data associated with eradicated cultivation sites) occurs within approximately 5 percent of the coastal central Oregon population area, 25 percent of the coastal southern Oregon population area, and 40 percent of the coastal northern California population area (Service 2014, unpubl. data). However, the incidence of toxicant exposure that may result for coastal martens and the potential population-level effects are largely unknown given testing for exposure to ARs began only recently. We note significant uncertainty as to the severity of impact that this stressor may have at the population- and rangewide levels on coastal marten given that the best available data are minimal regarding potential exposure to this stressor and any consequent effects on coastal martens at this time, including the lack of information regarding potential sublethal effects. There are few samples to fully determine coastal marten exposure rates to ARs, and no tests on martens to determine sublethal exposure rates and effects. The recent legalization of marijuana in the State of Oregon adds an additional element of uncertainty to evaluation of this stressor, as it is unknown whether or how this may potentially affect exposure rates (for example, whether there may be a trend toward indoor grow operations, which would potentially reduce exposure of wildlife to ARs). Based on the analysis contained within the Species Report and summarized above, we find the population-level impact from exposure to toxicants to be low both currently and into the future, although a higher (medium-level) impact may occur for the coastal northern California population as a result of higher prevalence of illegal marijuana cultivation sites. The best available information does not suggest that these impacts rise to the level of a threat, primarily based on the available information on levels of known marten exposure to ARs and lack of evidence that ARs are having a population-level effect.
Small, isolated populations are more susceptible to impacts overall, and relatively more vulnerable to extinction due to genetic problems, demographic and environmental fluctuations, and natural catastrophes (Primack 1993, p. 255). That is, the smaller a population becomes, the more likely it is that one or more stressors could impact a population, potentially reducing its size such that it is at increased risk of extinction. We therefore evaluated information suggesting that the currently known populations of coastal martens may be small or isolated from one another to the degree that such negative effects may be realized in the DPS.
The best available data suggest coastal marten distribution has contracted markedly in California and southern Oregon since the early 20th century. At present there are three known extant populations of coastal martens in California and Oregon; however, much of coastal Oregon has not been systematically surveyed. Of these known populations, the coastal northern California population is the only population for which size estimates are available. Based on multi-state occupancy modeling, Slauson
The abundance and trend of coastal marten populations in coastal Oregon is unknown; standardized survey efforts for martens in central and southern Oregon began in 2014. In the coastal central Oregon population area, at least one marten was detected in 2014, and six martens have been detected in 2015 in the first weeks of surveys (Moriarty 2015, pers. comm.). In addition, surveys just beginning in southern coastal Oregon have yielded a marten detection (Moriarty 2015, pers. comm.). Surveys are continuing at the time of publication of this document.
Slauson and Zielinski (2009, p. 36) describe the three known extant coastal marten populations as disjunct. Verified marten detections have clustered into the three extant population areas recognized in this document, which are geographically separated. The degree of functional connectivity between the known populations is not well understood due to insufficient survey effort in many areas, particularly in coastal Oregon (Service 2015, p. 29). There are some detections of martens occurring between the coastal northern California and coastal southern Oregon populations (Service 2015, p. 31, Figure 8.2(B)). Habitat modeling suggests connectivity of suitable habitat between these populations (Service 2015, pp. 25-26), and there are no known barriers to dispersal between them. Suitable habitat is more limited and of lower quality between the coastal southern Oregon and coastal central Oregon populations, but not entirely discontinuous (Service 2015, pp. 25-26). Survey efforts have also been more limited in this area to date (Service 2015, p. 29). Marten surveys are largely lacking from coastal central and coastal northern Oregon, although habitat modeling suggests conditions suitable for additional martens that could support the existing known populations (Service 2015, p. 29-30, 34).
Surveys designed to determine potential occupancy by coastal martens (for example, targeting areas of suitable habitat large enough to support multiple home ranges) may not necessarily detect animals moving between populations. Although not equivalent in function to large areas of contiguous habitat, fragmented patches of forest sufficient to provide corridors for dispersal of individuals can play an important role in maintaining assemblages of old-growth forest mammals (Perault and Lomolino 2000, pp. 418-419). The potential habitat connectivity between known populations of coastal martens and their capacity to travel long distances at least on occasion suggests that the geographically disjunct nature of coastal marten populations is not necessarily a barrier resulting in isolation. As described earlier, the majority of juvenile martens disperse relatively short distances from their natal areas, generally less than 15 km (9.3 mi) (Phillips 1994, pp. 93-94). The distance between known extant coastal marten populations exceeds the mean maximum juvenile dispersal distance for martens in general (15 km (9.3 mi); Phillips 1994, pp. 93-94). The distance between known extant populations exceeds this distance, but is within the maximum observed dispersal capability of martens, ranging from 40 to 80 km (25 to 50 mi) (Thompson and Colgan 1987, pp. 831-832; Broquet
In most cases, genetic interchange need occur only occasionally between populations (a minimum of 1 migrant per generation, possibly up to 10) to offset the potential negative impacts of inbreeding (
Based on all of these consideration, despite the relatively geographically disjunct nature of the known extant marten populations, we do not have evidence to suggest that the populations are likely entirely isolated from one another to the degree that we would expect the manifestation of significant negative effects that could potentially arise in small, isolated populations, such as inbreeding depression. We recognize that habitat quality and contiguity could be improved between the extant population areas, and indications are that habitat recruitment through management of Federal lands under the NWFP should contribute to improved connectivity. Despite room for improvement, at this point in time, the best available information suggests that the extant population areas are within the dispersal capabilities of martens and the habitat suitability model indicates some connectivity between populations, at least sufficient to provide for occasional genetic interchange. We note that more detailed information is needed regarding the size and demographics of coastal marten populations, as well as the capability of intervening areas of habitat to support dispersing individuals, in order to fully understand whether the known populations are faced with any challenges as a result of the present degree of connectivity between them.
Although coastal martens are likely reduced in abundance or distribution relative to their historical numbers and range, there is no empirical evidence that any current populations of coastal marten are in decline. Based upon the analysis contained within the Species Report and summarized above, the best available information indicates that the coastal northern California population totals fewer than 100 individuals (Slauson
Abundance and trend estimates are not available for the two coastal Oregon populations, so it is unknown whether these populations might be considered small. Coastal martens have likely been reduced in abundance relative to their historical numbers, although Zielinski
The three known extant populations of coastal martens are disjunct. While this characteristic does have some potential negative effects (
We estimate the potential impact of each stressor described above acting alone on coastal marten individuals, populations, and suitable habitat. However, coastal marten populations and suitable habitat can also be affected
Based on our analysis of all stressors that may be impacting coastal martens or their habitat, including, to be conservative, taking into account effects associated with potential small or isolated populations (noting that the coastal northern California population is known to be small and information is not available to indicate if the coastal Oregon populations may be small), it is likely that if any cumulative impacts occur, they would do so under the following three scenarios:
(1) A projected increase in the frequency and size of wildfires within the coastal southern Oregon and coastal northern California portions of the DPS's range due to climate change model projections of a warmer, drier climate in the future, which could also change vegetation structure.
(2) A potential increase in coastal marten mortality rates from predation, disease, fur trapping in Oregon, and collision with vehicles due to reduced marten fitness after sublethal exposure to toxicants found at marijuana grow sites, although levels of exposure remain unknown.
(3) Increased coastal marten predation rates due to an increased abundance of intraguild predators (
Here we consider the impacts of each of these potential cumulative effect scenarios:
Models of climate change predict potential increases in wildfire frequency and size within the coastal southern Oregon and coastal northern California portions of the DPS. As described in our analysis in “Wildfire” under
(1) Although climate change models generally predict warmer, drier conditions in the future, the coastal marten primarily inhabits forests that are relatively less vulnerable to such changes. The overall continued presence of relatively moist habitat conditions for coastal marten habitat, primarily along the western coast, including overall cooler, moist summer conditions, moderate the dry conditions that promote fire ignition and spread.
(2) Moderate- and high-quality habitat for coastal martens has remained following recent large wildfires (
(3) Neither adverse changes to coastal marten habitat through potential vegetation changes nor the loss of habitat from future wildfires is expected to be significant, nor is the combined effect of these two potential stressors.
Sublethal effects of anticoagulant rodenticides have been demonstrated for many species (see discussion in the Species Report (Service 2015, p. 57)), and can include reduced blood clotting abilities and excessive bleeding. Sublethal exposure to ARs has been shown to make individuals of non-mustelid mammals more susceptible to environmental stressors such as adverse weather, food shortages, and predation (Erickson and Urban 2004, p. 99; Jaques 1959, p. 851; Cox and Smith 1992, p. 169; Brakes and Smith 2005, p. 121; LaVoie 1990, p. 29), potentially predisposing individuals to death from other causes. However, there is wide variability in lethal and sublethal levels of ARs exhibited among and within taxonomic groups (Gabriel
Vegetation management activities that reduce the shrub layer that coastal martens rely on could also provide increased suitable habitat for marten predators, such as bobcats, resulting in potential increased levels of predation on coastal martens. In general, however, we expect such vegetation management activities would be restricted primarily to private lands. As discussed above (see
In summary, the best available scientific and commercial data at this time do not show that combined impacts of the most likely cumulative impact scenarios are resulting in significant individual- or population-level effects to the coastal marten, including when taking into consideration small population size, where known. Although all or some of the stressors could potentially act in concert as a cumulative threat to the coastal marten, there is ambiguity in either the likelihood or level of impacts for the various stressors at the population or rangewide level, or the data indicate only individual-level impacts. There is little doubt that coastal marten populations today are smaller and their range has been reduced compared to historical conditions, which potentially increases the vulnerability of the coastal marten to potential cumulative low- or medium-level impacts. However, the best available information does not provide reliable evidence to suggest that current coastal marten populations are experiencing population declines or further reductions in distribution, which would be indicative of such impacts. Thus, the best available scientific and commercial data do not indicate that these stressors (including consideration of effects associated with potentially small or isolated populations, to be conservative) are cumulatively causing now or will cause in the future a substantial decline of the total extant populations of the coastal marten across its range. Therefore, we have determined that the cumulative impacts of these potential stressors do not rise to the level of a threat.
The Humboldt Marten Conservation Group (HMCG) was formed in 2011, with the primary goal of developing a conservation assessment and strategy for the [then described] Humboldt marten subspecies (
The HMCG is cooperatively developing a conservation strategy to address coastal marten population and habitat needs across its range, including the goal of increasing the abundance and distribution of coastal martens through habitat retention, habitat restoration, and establishment of additional populations within their historical range. The strategy uses strategic habitat conservation and adaptive management principles, and will identify necessary permits and compliance needs well in advance of the need for such authorization. Each party seeks input and support from scientific and technical support staff within their agencies or organizations for the entire HMCG to consider for integration in overall planning, implementation, analysis, and monitoring efforts collectively found to be necessary for the conservation of coastal marten and its habitat. It is not the intent of the conservation strategy to supplant any ongoing and planned conservation efforts by the individual parties; instead, the conservation strategy intends to identify opportunities to enhance those conservation efforts. The HMCG holds quarterly meetings to facilitate completion and implementation of the conservation strategy. The California component of the conservation strategy is estimated to be completed in the spring of 2015, followed by the Oregon component in late 2015 or early 2016. A final conservation strategy for both states (as a single coastal marten conservation strategy) is estimated to be completed in 2016.
Tribes that own or manage lands within the historical range of the coastal marten (and may or may not have currently suitable coastal marten habitat on their lands) include: Coquille Indian Tribe; Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon; Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon (Siletz Indians); Hoopa Valley Tribe, California; Yurok Tribe of the Yurok Reservation, California (Yurok Tribe); Wiyot Tribe, California; Karuk Tribe; Elk Valley Rancheria, California; Smith River Rancheria, California; Resighini Rancheria, California; Big Lagoon Rancheria, California; Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria, California; Blue Lake Rancheria, California; Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria, California; Cahto Tribe of the Laytonville Rancheria; Sherwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California; and Manchester Band of Pomo Indians of the Manchester Rancheria, California.
Although suitable habitat for coastal martens may occur on tribal lands, our records indicate that none of the tribes in coastal Oregon or in coastal northern California specifically manage for coastal marten populations or habitat on their lands. However, the Siletz Indians manage 1,700 ha (4,300 ac) of forest land for the benefit of marbled murrelets (
In addition to conservation actions either planned or already being implemented related to the HMCG and tribal efforts, the Green Diamond Resource Company's (formerly Simpson Timber Company) 1992 Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) (Simpson Timber Company 1992, entire) covers lands that contain suitable habitat for coastal marten. This HCP describes how Green Diamond Resource Company identifies (during planning for timber harvest) ways to retain resource attributes that provide core habitat for future northern spotted owl habitat, including retention of: (1) Hardwood and conifer patches, (2) habitat structure along watercourses, (3) hard and soft snags, (4) standing live culls (
As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing whether the coastal marten is an endangered or threatened species throughout all of its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future stressors faced by the coastal marten. We reviewed the petition, information available in our files, and other available published and unpublished information, and we consulted with recognized marten and habitat experts, and other Federal, State, and tribal agencies. Listing is warranted if, based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial data, we find that the stressors to the coastal DPS of the Pacific marten are so severe or broad in scope as to indicate that the coastal marten is in danger of extinction (endangered), or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
For the purposes of this evaluation, we are required to consider potential impacts to coastal martens into the foreseeable future. Based on the best available scientific and commercial information and to provide the necessary temporal context for assessing stressors to coastal martens, we determined 15 years (
We evaluated each of the potential stressors in the Species Report (Service 2015, entire) for the coastal DPS of Pacific marten, and we determined that wildfire (Factor A), habitat impacts due to the effects of climate change (Factor A), vegetation management (Factor A), development (Factor A), trapping (for fur and research purposes) (Factor B), disease (Factor C), predation (Factor C), collision with vehicles (Factor E), exposure to toxicants (Factor E), and small and isolated population size effects (Factor E) are factors that have either minimally impacted individuals in one or more of the populations or that may potentially have impacts on individuals or populations in the future. Our analysis resulted in the following conclusions for each of the stressors:
• Wildfire impacts are likely to occur throughout the range of the coastal marten similar to the historical impacts that have occurred based on the impact level estimates of the prevalence of wildfires within each extant population area between 1984-2012 (roughly 30 years). Overall, these impacts do not rise to the level of a threat based on the continued persistence of moderate- and high-quality habitat following past fires, the continued presence of relatively moist habitat conditions (overall) that moderate the dry conditions that promote fire ignition and spread, and little effect of altered structure or composition of the dominant forest types in areas that have experienced fire suppression. Thus, we do not anticipate a significant reduction in suitable habitat for coastal martens as the result of wildfire.
• Climate change modeling predicts a range of potential effects on vegetation, including some that indicate conditions could remain suitable for coastal martens in portions of the coastal range. The severity of potential impacts to coastal marten habitat will likely vary across the range, with effects to coastal martens potentially ranging from negative to neutral or potentially beneficial. Although many climate models generally agree about the changes in temperature and precipitation, the consequent effects on vegetation are more uncertain, as is the rate at which any such changes might be realized. Therefore, it is not clear how or when changes in forest type and plant species composition will affect the distribution of coastal marten habitat. There is additional uncertainty as to fine-scale features of suitable marten habitat that may be affected by climate change, whether any changes will occur at a scale relevant to the taxon, and how these changes will be expressed in the coastal marten populations. Overall, we lack sufficient information to predict with any certainty the future direct impacts of climate change on coastal marten habitat or populations. Consequently, we have determined that we do not have reliable information to suggest that climate change is a threat to coastal marten habitat now or in the future, although we will continue to seek additional information concerning how climate change may affect coastal marten habitat.
• Vegetation management is likely to have an overall low impact on the loss, degradation, or fragmentation of suitable coastal marten habitat across the range of the DPS both currently and into the future. Some loss of suitable habitat (primarily low-quality suitable habitat) is expected to continue to occur into the future on private lands within all three population areas. However, private lands support a relatively small proportion of the suitable habitat available for coastal martens within extant population areas. Federal lands constitute a majority of the extant population areas, have longer timber-harvest rotations, and retain more structural features on the subset of that area in matrix lands. In addition, most of the Federal lands that provide suitable habitat are in Federal Reserves, which are managed for the maintenance and recruitment of late-successional habitat characteristics beneficial for coastal martens; suitable habitat is thus expected to increase in Federal Reserves. Therefore, overall potential impacts from vegetation management do not rise to the level of a threat.
• Development has an overall low impact on the loss, degradation, or fragmentation of suitable coastal marten habitat across the range of the DPS both currently and into the future, and thus does not rise to the level of a threat. If development does occur, loss of suitable habitat is expected to be minimal, as has been the trend over the past 30 years.
• Fur trapping of coastal martens has no impact to the population in coastal northern California because trapping for martens is illegal in California. Possible illegal fur trapping in California, as well as rangewide potential impacts
• Disease has not been documented in the past within coastal marten populations. The prevalence of possible past exposure to lethal pathogens within the coastal northern California population and the coastal Oregon populations has not been determined, and we have no information to suggest that disease is currently present in any of the populations. At this point in time, there is a low probability that a disease outbreak may occur. We anticipate that if there should be an outbreak, it would likely have a low impact on all three coastal marten populations combined since the distance between the extant populations makes it unlikely that an outbreak would spread to all three populations. Thus, disease does not rise to the level of a threat.
• Predation is a natural process and is generally only considered a threat if it is occurring at unnaturally high levels that are not sustainable. The population-level impact of predation within the three coastal marten extant population areas is currently unknown, although the best available data from one evaluation of predation indicate a 33 percent annual predation rate for the coastal northern California population (Slauson
• Collisions with vehicles are rare, but they can be expected into the future. Known rates of mortality due to collisions with vehicles have been low for coastal martens, and the best available information does not suggest any significant increases in vehicular traffic or new highways to be built in areas where martens occur. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the impact of collisions with vehicles on coastal martens to continue at similar levels into the future and not rise to the level of a threat.
• Illegal and legal marijuana cultivation sites (and use of ARs and other pesticides) are present within or near all three coastal marten populations, although the probability of exposure varies between them. The degree of exposure and the effect of such exposure on coastal martens, should it occur, is unknown and thus far unstudied. There is significant uncertainty as to the severity of impact that this stressor may have on coastal martens at the population- and rangewide levels given that the best available data are minimal regarding this stressor and coastal martens at this time, and given the lack of information regarding potential sublethal effects. Furthermore, it is unclear how the recent legalization of marijuana in Oregon will affect the amount or spread of illegal marijuana grow sites. The best available information does not suggest that these potential impacts rise to the level of a threat, primarily based on the available information on levels of known marten exposure to ARs and lack of evidence that ARs are having a population-level effect.
• Small, isolated populations are more susceptible to impacts, and therefore, we evaluated whether coastal marten populations are small and isolated such that these negative effects are likely to be realized. At this time, evidence suggests that coastal marten distribution has contracted markedly in California and southern Oregon since the early 20th century. Although the coastal northern California population abundance declined in the recent past (based on survey data between 2000 and 2008 (Slauson
• Potential cumulative impacts to the coastal marten from all stressors combined or some of the stressors are possible; however, the most likely scenarios for cumulative impacts are likely to only occur from the following three scenarios: Increased frequency or size of wildfires associated with potential climate changes; increased coastal marten mortality rates from predation, disease, or other factors following a sublethal exposure to toxicants; or possible increased coastal marten predation rates due to decreased shrub densities resulting from vegetation management activities. Based on the best available data at this time and as described above, none of these possible cumulative impacts are likely to occur currently or into the foreseeable future to such a degree that the effects are expected to lead to population- or rangewide-level declines. Therefore, the cumulative impact of these potential stressors does not rise to the level of a threat.
We also evaluated existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) and did not determine an inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms for coastal marten. Specifically, we found that multiple Federal land use plans (
None of these impacts, as summarized above, was found to individually or cumulatively impact the coastal DPS of Pacific marten to a degree such that listing is warranted at this time. Based on the analysis contained within the Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 41-95), we conclude that the best available scientific and commercial information indicates that these stressors are not
We base our decision on the following:
(1) Although habitat-based impacts may be occurring currently or in the future primarily as a result of wildfire and vegetation management (and, to an unknown degree, the effects of climate change), much of the coastal marten's habitat is not in especially fire-prone forest types, and vegetation management has significant impacts only on the relatively small area in private ownership within its range. Significant amounts of moderate- and high-suitability habitat are currently available on Federal and State lands within all three population areas, including approximately 44 percent of the coastal central Oregon population area, 70 percent of the coastal southern Oregon population area, and 63 percent of the coastal northern California population. Moderate- and high-suitability habitat in the coastal central Oregon population area is a currently undetermined value greater than 44 percent because the habitat suitability model did not account for occupied coastal dune habitat that exists as a narrow coastal strip along the western boundary of that population area. Overall, the existing moderate- and high-suitability habitat includes some areas that appear to be either (or both): (a) Resilient to many high-severity fires due to pronounced levels of precipitation and cool, moist summer conditions that exist along the coast currently and into the future; and (b) protected from significantly damaging treatments of vegetation management (
(2) Coastal marten populations throughout their range have likely experienced declines or significant impacts in the past (
We recognize a need to continue to monitor the coastal marten because the populations are disjunct, which in general makes them more susceptible to stressors than species with larger, more well-connected populations. There has been relatively little survey effort throughout much of the range of the DPS, however. In general, the interchange of only a few individuals is needed to maintain genetic connectivity between populations over time. As described in this document and the Species Report (Service 2015, entire), there are stressors that we find may be having some effect on coastal marten populations, albeit not to the degree that they currently rise to the level that listing is warranted. We will continue to monitor the status of the DPS and evaluate any other information we receive. Additional information will continue to be accepted on all aspects of the DPS. If at any time data indicate that protective status under the Act should be provided or if there are new threats or increasing stressors that rise to the level of a threat, we can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing pursuant to section 4(b)(7) of the Act.
In conclusion, we acknowledge that the coastal marten population in California may be reduced in size relative to its historical abundance, and that coastal martens may be reduced in distribution as compared to their historical range. A listing determination, however, must be based on our assessment of the current status of the species—in this case, the coastal DPS of the Pacific marten—in relation to the five listing factors under the Act. Section 4 of the Act requires that we make such a determination based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available. To this end, we must rely on reasonable conclusions as supported by the best available science to assess the current and future status to determine whether the coastal marten meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the stressors acting upon the coastal DPS of the Pacific marten are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the coastal marten is in danger of extinction now (endangered), or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all of its range.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is an endangered or a threatened species throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act defines “endangered species” as any species which is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” and “threatened species” as any species which is “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The term “species” includes “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” We published a final policy interpreting the phrase “Significant Portion of its Range” (SPR) (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). The final policy states that (1) if a species is found to be an endangered or a threatened species throughout a significant portion of its range, the entire species is listed as an endangered or a threatened species, respectively, and the Act's protections apply to all individuals of the species wherever found; (2) a portion of the range of a species is “significant” if the species is not currently an endangered or a threatened species throughout all of its range, but the portion's contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout
The SPR Policy is applied to all status determinations, including analyses for the purposes of making listing, delisting, and reclassification determinations. The procedure for analyzing whether any portion is an SPR is similar, regardless of the type of status determination we are making. The first step in our analysis of the status of a species (“species” under the Act refers to any listable entity, including species, subspecies, or DPS) is to determine its status throughout all of its range. If we determine that the species is in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range, we list the species as an endangered (or threatened) species and no SPR analysis is required. If the species is neither an endangered nor a threatened species throughout all of its range, we determine whether the species is an endangered or a threatened species throughout a significant portion of its range. If it is, we list the species as an endangered or a threatened species, respectively; if it is not, we conclude that listing the species is not warranted.
When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of the species' range that warrant further consideration. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and either endangered or threatened. To identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial information indicating that (1) the portions may be significant, and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction in those portions or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. We emphasize that answering these questions in the affirmative is not a determination that the species is an endangered or a threatened species throughout a significant portion of its range—rather, it is a step in determining whether a more detailed analysis of the issue is required. In practice, a key part of this analysis is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If the threats to the species are affecting it uniformly throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats apply only to portions of the range that clearly do not meet the biologically based definition of “significant” (
If we identify any portions that may be both (1) significant and (2) endangered or threatened, we engage in a more detailed analysis to determine whether these standards are indeed met. The identification of an SPR does not create a presumption, prejudgment, or other determination as to whether the species in that identified SPR is an endangered or a threatened species. We must go through a separate analysis to determine whether the species is an endangered or a threatened species in the SPR. To determine whether a species is an endangered or a threatened species throughout an SPR, we will use the same standards and methodology that we use to determine if a species is an endangered or a threatened species throughout its range.
Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it may be more efficient to address the “significant” question first, or the status question first. Thus, if we determine that a portion of the range is not “significant,” we do not need to determine whether the species is an endangered or a threatened species there; if we determine that the species is not an endangered or a threatened species in a portion of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is “significant.”
We consider the historical range of the coastal marten to include coastal Oregon from the Columbia River (Clatsop and Columbia counties) south into northern Sonoma County, California, including suitable habitat from the coast eastward to an elevation of 1,524 m (5,000 ft). This range encompasses the coastal central Oregon extant population area, the coastal southern Oregon extant population area, the coastal northern California extant population area, and the intervening habitat. Based on the best available information at this time, these populations account for the current distribution of the DPS.
In considering any significant portion of the coastal marten's range, we considered whether the stressors facing the coastal marten might be different at three locations where the coastal martens have been found and, thus, geographically concentrated in some portion of the range of the DPS. In the Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors analysis above, we identified the most likely potential differences associated with fur trapping in Oregon, wildfire, climate change, development and vegetation management (timber harvesting), and toxicant exposure.
(1) Fur trapping is legal in Oregon, and thus the two Oregon populations may be affected by this activity. Population-level impacts of legal coastal marten fur trapping within the two Oregon extant population areas have not been studied, as the impact of trapping on a marten population requires an estimate of population abundance, which is currently unavailable for both extant population areas in coastal Oregon. Based on the very few individuals removed from this population over time (36 individuals harvested from trapping over a 26-year period, between 1969 and 1995—on average fewer than 2 per year), the best available data indicate that fur trapping is unlikely to result in population-level impacts.
Fur trapping of martens is illegal in California but legal for other furbearer species. We expect that nearly all coastal martens that are accidentally captured in box traps set for other furbearer species (or that are live-trapped for research purposes) are released unharmed. Although illegal fur trapping specifically for martens is also a possibility in California, the best available data at this time do not indicate that illegal fur trapping or incidental legal live-trapping for coastal martens for research purposes is resulting in population-level impacts. Overall, we do not find that the potential impacts from fur trapping (illegal or legal) and live-trapping for research purposes are geographically concentrated in any one portion of the range of the DPS.
(2) The potential impacts from wildfire are slightly greater within the coastal southern Oregon and coastal northern California populations as compared to the coastal central Oregon population when considering historical (between 1984 and 2012) wildfire incidents and the likelihood that into the foreseeable future (approximately 30 years), the frequency, intensity, and severity of wildfires are expected to be similar to the recent past. However, these wildfires in coastal southern Oregon and coastal northern California have burned at varying levels of severity and have thus only partially impacted (
(a) The coastal marten's range continuing to occur within a (generally) fog-influenced coastal zone, and thus the continued widespread presence of persistent, moist conditions year-round (including Pacific storms in the winter and cloud cover or coastal fog in the summer) that likely result in lower severity wildfires than what would occur in areas without the a moist, coastal influence; and
(b) The anticipated widespread presence of varying levels of suitable habitat post-fire throughout the coastal marten's range, as demonstrated by post-burn surveys.
(3) The potential impacts from climate change are slightly greater within the coastal southern Oregon and coastal northern California populations, which models indicate could result in a warmer and drier climate into the foreseeable future (40 to 50 years) as compared to the coastal central Oregon population. Nearly all models that encompass the landscape containing these two population areas show shifts in vegetation type to habitat that may be considered less favorable for coastal martens. However, most models project these shifts in vegetation type over time by the end of the century, and the models predict these same potential vegetation shifts in coastal central and northern Oregon. Additionally, even if vegetation shifts occur, suitable habitat for coastal martens is expected to remain in portions of the coastal southern Oregon and coastal northern California population areas, to which coastal martens could migrate (see Climate Change, above). Overall, we do not anticipate a geographic concentration of threats in any one portion of the DPS' range given the variety of potential effects from climate change, the high level of uncertainty regarding the nature and timing of any such effects, and the likelihood that suitable habitat for coastal martens will remain available into the foreseeable future throughout the entire range of the DPS despite potential climate change impacts.
(4) Both development (
Some vegetation management activities may also occur throughout the coastal marten's range that may result in short-term impacts to coastal marten (such as thinning, fuels reduction projects, and habitat restoration), but eventually result in long-term benefits to coastal martens and their habitat. In these cases, the long-term benefits likely outweigh the potential short-term, localized impacts by improving habitat suitability for the coastal marten in the long-term through: (a) Minimizing loss of late-successional stands due to wildfires, and (b) accelerating the development of late-seral characteristics. Although short-term degradation of suitable habitat could occur, these types of projects are designed to ultimately increase the overall amount, distribution, and patch size of suitable coastal marten habitat.
(5) Potential exposure of coastal martens to toxicants as a result of illegal marijuana cultivation sites is likely to continue on some lands within the coastal marten's range. This type of activity could potentially occur in those areas where marijuana grow sites are located (which currently is known to be a fraction of the coastal marten's range). Based on the presence of suitable climate conditions for marijuana cultivation and data that indicate a greater concentration of recently eradicated cultivation sites within or near the coastal northern California population area, these activities may possibly occur to a greater extent in the coastal northern California population area as compared to the coastal Oregon population areas. Of note is that incidence of toxicant exposure and the potential population-level effects to coastal marten are largely unknown, and there is significant uncertainty as to the severity of impact (both lethal and sublethal) that this stressor may have at the population- and rangewide levels on coastal marten, especially given the recent legalization of marijuana in Oregon (note that marijuana is not legal in California). The best available data indicate broad use of ARs at illegal marijuana cultivation sites, as well as continued use of ARs at legal grow sites, both of which are found within the range of the DPS, but the degree of exposure that may result for coastal martens is unknown. To date, only one record of a positive exposure exists within the range of the coastal marten that demonstrates exposure to ARs. Therefore, at this time, the best available data do not indicate that the coastal marten's exposure to ARs will occur at a level greater than any other in any one portion of the range of the DPS.
In summary, our evaluation of the best available information indicates that the overall level of stressors is not geographically concentrated in one portion of the coastal marten's range, and that the stressors that have the potential to impact coastal martens are relatively consistent across its range (Service 2015, entire). Therefore, it is our conclusion, based on our evaluation of the current potential threats to the coastal marten (see Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors section of this finding and the “Stressors on Coastal Marten Populations and Habitat” section of the Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 41-95)), that no portion of the range of the coastal DPS of Pacific marten warrants
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the coastal marten is not in danger of extinction (endangered) nor likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the coastal DPS of the Pacific marten as an endangered or threatened species under the Act is not warranted at this time.
We request that you submit any new information concerning the status of, or threats to, the coastal marten to our Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (see
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the Pacific Southwest Regional Office.
The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
| 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 |