Page Range | 3939-4158 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
81 FR 4036 - Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines | |
81 FR 4031 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
81 FR 4080 - In the Matter of Vadda Energy Corp.; Order of Suspension of Trading | |
81 FR 4070 - In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant; Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, and R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant; Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; and Southern California Edison Company, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, including Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations for All Facilities; Correction | |
81 FR 4081 - Re-Consideration Concerning the Scope of Authorizations in a Presidential Permit Issued to Plains LPG Services, L.P. in May 2014 for Existing Pipeline Facilities on the Border of the United States and Canada Under the St. Clair River | |
81 FR 4061 - Cat Island National Wildlife Refuge, LA; Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Finding of No Significant Impact for Environmental Assessment | |
81 FR 4060 - Theodore Roosevelt and Holt Collier National Wildlife Refuges, Mississippi Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Environmental Assessment | |
81 FR 4081 - Escalate Capital Partners SBIC III, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest | |
81 FR 3941 - Small Business Size Standards: Employee Based Size Standards in Wholesale Trade and Retail Trade | |
81 FR 3949 - Small Business Size Standards: Inflation Adjustment to Monetary Based Size Standards | |
81 FR 4071 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
81 FR 4082 - Sanctions Lifting Actions Taken Pursuant to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action | |
81 FR 4063 - Statement of Findings: Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation Water Rights Settlement Act | |
81 FR 3939 - Lacey Act Implementation Plan; Definitions for Exempt and Regulated Articles | |
81 FR 3941 - Organization and Functions; Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs or Activities Conducted by the Farm Credit Administration; Organization of the Farm Credit Administration | |
81 FR 4067 - Correction Notice: Notice of Public Meetings in Alaska Pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act | |
81 FR 4066 - Notice of Intent To Audit | |
81 FR 4064 - Notice of Application for Extension of Public Land Order No. 5645, and Opportunity for Public Meeting; Alaska | |
81 FR 4051 - Extension and Redesignation of South Sudan for Temporary Protected Status | |
81 FR 4045 - Extension of the Designation of Sudan for Temporary Protected Status | |
81 FR 4064 - Notice of Open Public Meetings and Teleconferences for the National Park Service Alaska Region Subsistence Resource Commission Program | |
81 FR 4083 - National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Notice of Termination of Interim Approval IA-5 | |
81 FR 3962 - Special Local Regulations; Southern California Annual Marine Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone | |
81 FR 4037 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Media-Smart Youth Leaders Program | |
81 FR 3957 - Self-Certification and Employee Training of Mail-Order Distributors of Scheduled Listed Chemical Products | |
81 FR 4059 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Client Session Evaluation | |
81 FR 3976 - Special Local Regulations; Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Special Local Regulations Update | |
81 FR 4059 - Alternative Requirements for the Family Unification Program (FUP) | |
81 FR 4025 - Quadrennial Energy Review; Notice of Public Meeting | |
81 FR 4023 - Environmental Assessment for the Acceptance and Disposition of Spent Nuclear Fuel Containing U.S.-Origin Highly Enriched Uranium From the Federal Republic of Germany | |
81 FR 4027 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New Mexico | |
81 FR 4027 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge Reservation | |
81 FR 4029 - Ortho-Phthalaldehyde; Receipt of Application for Emergency Exemption, Solicitation of Public Comment | |
81 FR 4028 - Request for Nominations of Candidates for EPA's Science Advisory Board 2016-2018 Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards Committee | |
81 FR 3959 - Professional U.S. Scouting Organization Operations at U.S. Military Installations Overseas | |
81 FR 4016 - National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE) Wireless Medical Infusion Pumps Use Case for the Health Care Sector | |
81 FR 4021 - Pacific Island Fisheries; Special Coral Reef Ecosystem Fishing Permit for Offshore Aquaculture | |
81 FR 4018 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Application for an Exempted Fishing Permit | |
81 FR 4032 - Announcement of the Award of a Single-Source Expansion Supplement Grant to PathWays PA in Philadelphia, PA | |
81 FR 4034 - Announcement of the Award of a Single-Source Expansion Supplement Grant to the National Runaway Switchboard | |
81 FR 4016 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; National Security and Critical Technology Assessments of the U.S. Industrial Base | |
81 FR 4062 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comment on Proposed Revisions to the United States Thoroughfare, Landmark and Postal Address Data Standard | |
81 FR 4034 - Announcement of the Award a Single-Source Program Expansion Supplement Grant to BCFS Health and Human Services in San Antonio, TX | |
81 FR 4071 - Income Tax Review | |
81 FR 4033 - Announcement of the Award of a Single-Source Expansion Supplement Grant to the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, Chicago, IL | |
81 FR 4040 - Privacy Act of 1974; Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection-007 Border Crossing Information System of Records | |
81 FR 4022 - Defense Health Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
81 FR 4035 - Announcing the Award of a Single-Source Program Expansion Supplement Grant to the Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum in Oakland, CA | |
81 FR 4031 - Announcing the Award of a Single-Source Program Expansion Supplement Grant to Futures Without Violence in San Francisco, CA | |
81 FR 4032 - Announcing the Award of a Single-Source Program Expansion Supplement Grant to Casa de Esperanza in St. Paul, MN | |
81 FR 4069 - Restructuring of National Labor Relations Board's Headquarters' Offices | |
81 FR 4030 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
81 FR 3963 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Colorado; Revisions to Common Provisions and Regulation Number 3; Correction | |
81 FR 4005 - Fourteen-Day Extension of Time To File Comments and Reply Comments | |
81 FR 4039 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 4038 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 4037 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 4083 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: General Operating and Flight Rules | |
81 FR 4082 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “China's First Emperor and His Terracotta Warriors” Exhibition | |
81 FR 4076 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Alternative Trading System Volume and Trading Information | |
81 FR 4074 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Make Nonsubstantive, Clarifying Amendments to Several Rules Relating to the Clearing of Exchange Options Transactions | |
81 FR 4072 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Simplification of Disclosure Requirements for Emerging Growth Companies and Forward Incorporation by Reference on Form S-1 for Smaller Reporting Companies | |
81 FR 4084 - National Research Advisory Council, Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 4007 - Update Means of Providing Notification; Improving Efficacy of Recalls | |
81 FR 4010 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Snapper Management Measures; Amendment 28 | |
81 FR 3956 - Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food; Correction | |
81 FR 3970 - Reauthorization of the United States Grain Standards Act | |
81 FR 3982 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan Revisions To Align With the National Response Framework | |
81 FR 3967 - Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet | |
81 FR 4086 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Pumps | |
81 FR 4067 - Fingerprint Submission Requirements |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Industry and Security Bureau
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Affirmation of interim final rule.
We are adopting as a final rule, without change, an interim final rule that established definitions for the terms
Effective on January 25, 2016, we are adopting as a final rule the interim final rule published at 78 FR 40940-40945 on July 9, 2013.
Ms. Parul Patel, Senior Agriculturalist, Imports, Regulations, and Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 60, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; 301-851-2351.
The Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371
The statute excludes from the definition of the term “plant” the following categories: (i) Common cultivars, except trees, and common food crops; (ii) scientific specimens for laboratory or field research (unless they are listed in an appendix to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, 27 UST 1087; TIAS 8249); as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
In addition, Section 3 of the Lacey Act, as amended, makes it unlawful, beginning December 15, 2008, to import plants and plant products without an import declaration. The declaration must contain, among other things, the scientific name of the plant, value of the importation, quantity of the plant, and name of the country from which the plant was harvested. Currently, enforcement of the declaration requirement is being phased in, as described in two notices we published in the
On August 4, 2010, we published in the
Comments on the proposed rule were required to be received on or before November 29, 2010. The comments we received on the proposed rule included concerns about two additional terms used in the regulations. Specifically, some commenters asked that we define the term
We agreed with the commenters that adding definitions of these terms would improve clarity. Therefore, in an interim final rule
We invited public comment on these two definitions. Comments on the interim final rule were required to be received on or before August 8, 2013. We received two comments by that date. The comments were from an organization of State plant pest regulatory agencies and a retailer selling home furnishings.
One commenter supported the additional definitions as proposed. The other commenter stated that the definitions of
Willows and osiers are trees and therefore cannot be excepted from the declaration requirement. We note that several species of palms, including African oil palm (
As we explained in the interim final rule, the list of common cultivars and common food crops is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. The list is available on the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Web site at
• Scientific name of the plant (genus, species);
• Common or trade names;
• Annual trade volume (
• Any other information that will help us make a determination, such as countries or regions where grown, estimated number of acres or hectares in commercial production, and so on.
Decisions about which products will be included on the list will be made jointly by APHIS and the DOI's Fish and Wildlife Service. We will inform our stakeholders when the list is updated via email and other electronic media. We will also note updates of the list on APHIS' Lacey Act Web site mentioned above.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim final rule and in this document, we are adopting the interim final rule as a final rule without change.
This action also affirms the information contained in the interim final rule concerning Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Orders 12988 and 13175.
Section 3 of the Lacey Act makes it unlawful to import certain plants and plant products without an import declaration, which must contain, among other things, the scientific name of the plant, value of the importation, quantity of the plant, and name of the country in which the plant was harvested. In addition, there is a supplemental form that must be completed if additional space is needed to declare additional plants and plant products. Also, records of the import declaration and supplemental form must be retained for at least 5 years. These collection activities have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 0579-0349. We published a notice in the
Common cultivars and common food crops are among the categorical exclusions to the provisions of the Act. In the July 2013 interim final rule, we advised the public that inquiries about specific taxa or commodities and requests to add taxa or commodities to the list, or remove them from the list, be sent in writing to APHIS, including information as to the scientific name of the plant (genus, species), common or trade names, annual trade volume (
We inadvertently did not obtain OMB approval for this information collection activity. Therefore, in accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the EGovernment Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.
Endangered and threatened species, Plants (Agriculture).
Farm Credit Administration.
Notice of effective date.
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA, we, Agency or our) amended our regulations to reflect internal organization changes and to update a statutory citation for the Farm Credit Act. In accordance with the law, the effective date of the rule is no earlier than 30 days from the date of publication in the
Under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 2252, the regulation amending 12 CFR parts 600 and 606 published on November 5, 2015 (80 FR 68427) is effective January 25, 2016.
Michael T. Wilson, Policy Analyst, Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090, (703) 883-4124, TTY (703) 883-4056, or Jane Virga, Senior Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090, (703) 883-4071, TTY (703) 883-4056.
The Farm Credit Administration amended our regulations to reflect internal organization changes and to update a statutory citation for the Farm Credit Act. In accordance with 12 U.S.C. 2252, the effective date of the final rule is no earlier than 30 days from the date of publication in the
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Final rule.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA or Agency) is increasing 47 small business size standards based on a concern's number of employees. These increases affect 46 industries in North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Sector 42, Wholesale Trade, and one industry in NAICS Sector 44-45, Retail Trade. SBA retains the size standards for the remaining industries in those sectors and the 500-employee size standard for the Federal Government's procurement of supplies under the nonmanufacturer rule. As part of its comprehensive size standards review under the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, SBA reviewed all 71 industries in NAICS Sector 42, as well as the two industries in NAICS Sector 44-45, that have employee based size standards. The revisions adopted in this rule primarily affect eligibility for SBA's financial assistance programs, and have no impact on Federal procurement programs.
This rule is effective on February 26, 2016.
Carl Jordan, Office of Size Standards, (202) 205-6618 or
On May 19, 2014 (79 FR 28631), SBA proposed to increase employee based size standards for 46 industries in NAICS Sector 42, Wholesale Trade, and one industry in NAICS Sector 44-45, Retail Trade. The Agency proposed keeping the current size standards for the remaining industries in those sectors. SBA also proposed to retain the 500-employee size standard for Federal procurement of supplies under the nonmanufacturer rule (13 CFR 121.406).
The proposed rule sought comments from the public on the Agency's proposals and received seven comments. Generally, commenters opposed the proposed increases to the size standards in the wholesale trade industries. However, while some commenters appeared to be cognizant of the effects of the proposed increases and how they apply to various small business programs and their industries, others did not seem to be aware that the NAICS codes and size standards for the wholesale and retail trade industries do not apply to Federal Government procurement programs and the proposed increases would have no impact on size eligibility for Federal contracts.
What follows is a summary and discussion of the comments, their positions and the issues they raise, and SBA's responses. All comments are available for public review at the Federal Rulemaking Portal,
Two parties submitted identical comments, opposing SBA's proposal to increase the size standards. The commenters stated that current size standards are already too high, and expanding them will make matters worse. The commenters contended that 98 percent of all businesses (including non-employer firms) have 1-19 employees, and those businesses mostly need loans of $50,000 to $250,000. Expanding the definition of “small” is crippling their ability to get loans, they added. The commenters maintained that the average size of SBA's loan increased from $182,000 in 2008 to $547,000 in 2013, while the share of loans under $100,000, which they claimed generally go to truly small businesses, decreased from 24 percent to 9 percent.
The European Union defines the smallest unit of small business as less than 10 employees, and Australia defines “small” as 1-14 employees under its Fair Work Act, the commenters noted. In addition, they stated that the U.S. Congress defines small business as 20-25 employees “and rarely as high as 50.” The commenters asked SBA to stop focusing on 2 percent of the largest small businesses and refocus on the remaining 98 percent of small businesses because they are the ones who really need the help. The higher size standards, if adopted, will put loan assistance out of reach for most small businesses, they argued.
Another commenter that offers startup workshops to entrepreneurs expressed concerns on how SBA defines small business. Specifically, the commenter stated that almost any business with up
A Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business concern opposed the 500-employee nonmanufacturer size standard. The commenter stated that it provides an unfair advantage for larger small businesses. His small business cannot compete with the larger small businesses with up to 500 employees, the commenter added. The commenter noted that pricing is one of the reasons why larger small businesses have an advantage in the bidding process for work set aside for small businesses.
A small woman-owned company submitted a comment, opposing the proposed increase to the size standard for NAICS 423610 (Electrical Apparatus and Equipment, Wiring Supplies, and Related Equipment Merchant Wholesalers) from 100 employees to 200 employees. The commenter asked how increasing the size standard would assist with startup cost and entry barriers. The commenter stated that it took almost 30 years for her business to grow from one employee to 38 employees. The proposed 200-employee standard is too large for the industry, and no company with 200 employees need assistance, the commenter added. The commenter suggested that SBA should consider converting the size standard for NAICS 423610 from employees to receipts, because it would help the Agency to better collect data on assistance to actual small businesses. The commenter stated that her company is able to compete with similarly sized companies in the industry for work reserved for small businesses, but not with large businesses. The commenter maintained that the difference between a 200-employee size business and a 38-employee business is huge, mainly because a 200-employee size business has considerably more resources when competing for Federal Government contracts. The commenter concluded by stating that the size standard for NAICS 423610 should remain at 100 employees or be converted to gross receipts.
SBA received a collective comment from four parties, including two organizations representing women-owned businesses, a trade group representing small manufacturers, and an attorney representing Federal prime contractors and subcontractors, opposing the Agency's proposal to increase the size standards for some wholesale and retail trade industries. The commenters were concerned that with increasing size standards businesses that have outgrown size standards through SBA's programs will be redefined as small. This is completely unfair to truly small firms that are not able to compete against larger firms, win contracts and grow, they explained. This is contrary to SBA's mission and the purpose of the Small Business Act to provide small business owners with opportunities to compete for and win Federal contracts, the commenters added.
The commenters stated that 90 percent of U.S. businesses have fewer than 20 employees, and felt that increasing size standards would have a negative impact on those small businesses, and on the broader economy, especially on the under-served communities. “What about the truly small businesses that often do not qualify for financial assistance because they don't meet funding qualifications, because they are too small, have insufficient capacity and resources, insufficient revenue and cash flow, and not enough relevant past performance?,” the commenters asked. The commenters maintained that larger small firms have more resources, can get better pricing and are more likely to be eligible for loans, and beat out the small firms every time.
The commenters asserted that milestones and goals that are used to justify changing size standards (
Opposing the proposed increases to size standards for the wholesale and retail trade industries, a commenter stated that, according to the U.S. Census Bureau data, 98 percent of all U.S. firms have less than 100 employees, 89 percent have less than 20 employees, and the average American small business has approximately 10 employees. Small business size standards should more closely reflect the actual size of American small businesses, the commenter added. He noted that SBA's size standards allow firms up to 1,500 employees to qualify as small. The commenter maintained that current size standards have an adverse effect on small businesses because, as he claimed, they favor large businesses. He stated that large businesses, including Fortune 500 companies, abuse size standards and end up getting contracts set aside for small businesses. In addition, he argued that SBA's Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office have found numerous instances of abuse of size standards and small business contracts that were awarded to large businesses.
SBA establishes size standards, in accordance with the Small Business Act, for purposes of establishing eligibility for Federal small business procurement and financial assistance
Although the smallest business unit may consist of less than 10 employees, SBA's small business size standards do not necessarily reflect the smallest size of businesses. It should be noted that SBA's size standards apply to most Federal programs that provide benefits to small businesses, including small business procurement programs. Accordingly, qualifications and capabilities that businesses need to perform Federal Government contracts are an important factor in determining which company qualifies as small within an industry. Size standards based on the smallest business size would be too small, and there would not be enough capable and qualified small businesses to meet Federal Government small business contracting needs. This would lead agencies to compete contracts on a full and open basis, thereby allowing large corporations to dominate the Federal market. It is imperative that small firms have room to grow and expand without losing their small business status until they are large enough to achieve a competitive size in their industry. Additionally, it is very important to note that while the size standards may appear to include a large segment of an industry in terms of the percentage of firms, small firms represent only about a third of total industry receipts and less than 25 percent of Federal contracting dollars.
SBA does not agree with, and the data does not support, the argument that businesses with 1-19 employees mostly need loans in the amount of $50,000 to $250,000. Based on the data on firms in all 71 industries in Sector 42 and the two industries in Sector 44-45 covered in this rule that received SBA's 7(a) and 504 loans in 2014, the median loan amount among firms with less than 20 employees was about $305,500. In addition, $250,000 or higher loans accounted for 62 percent of total number of loans and 85 percent of total loan volumes for those firms. SBA also does not agree with the argument that increases in average loan amounts and decreases in smaller loans are solely due to the increases in size standards for two reasons. First, with the passage of the Small Business Jobs Act in 2010 (Jobs Act) (Pub. L. 111-240, § 1116, Sep. 27, 2010), Congress increased the maximum loan amount for SBA's 7(a) loans from $2 million to $5 million, for CDC/504 loans from $1.5 million to either $5 million or $5.5 million, depending on the project. Second, at the same time, Congress also increased the tangible net worth and net income limits of the alternative size standard for those programs from $8.5 million and $3 million to $15 million and $5 million, respectively. 15 U.S.C. 632(3)(a)(5). Under the alternative size standard, businesses that are above their industry size standards can qualify for SBA guaranteed loans. These statutory changes may be important factors for the purported changes in SBA's lending. However, such changes do not necessarily mean that truly small businesses are getting fewer loans now than in 2008. For example, in industries covered by this rule, businesses with less than 20 employees received a total of $1.2 billion in loans through SBA's 7(a) and 504 programs in 2014, as compared to about $0.8 billion in 2008. That is an increase of 50 percent. Nearly 85 percent of total loans granted in those industries in 2014 went to firms with less than 20 employees.
The data does not support the argument that increasing small business size standards from 100 employees to 200 or 250 employees and thereby allowing larger businesses to qualify as small would affect the ability of truly small firms to obtain SBA's loans. For example, of the total loan amount disbursed under SBA's 7(a) and 504 programs to firms in Sector 42 during fiscal years 2012-2014, 63 percent went to firms with less than 20 employees, 89 percent to firms with less than 50 employees, and 96 percent to firms with less than 100 employees. Since the vast majority of firms that obtained SBA's loans are well below the current 100-employee size standard, the Agency does not believe that increasing it to 200 or 250 employees will have a significant negative impact on firms below the current size standard. Moreover, even if SBA decided to leave the size standard for all wholesale trade industries at the current 100-employee level, firms with more than 100 employees may still qualify as small for purposes of SBA's financial assistance. This is because, as stated above, for SBA's 7(a) and CDC/504 loan programs the Jobs Act established an alternative size standard making those firms that exceed their industry size standards eligible for SBA's 7(a) and 504 loans if their tangible net worth does not exceed $15 million and their average net income, after Federal income taxes, does not exceed $5 million over their preceding two fiscal years. Accordingly, firms whose annual receipts or number of employees are higher than their industry size standards may still qualify as small under the alternative size standard. In other words, any wholesaler that exceeded the 100-employee size standard would still be eligible for SBA's financial assistance if it met the alternative size standard. However, during fiscal years 2012-2014, less than 4 percent of total loan volume under SBA's 7(a) and 504 programs in Sector 42 went to firms with more than 100 employees. This further supports the earlier conclusion that the proposed increases to size standards in the wholesale and retail trade industries are unlikely to impact smaller firms seeking loans through SBA's financial assistance programs.
SBA does not agree with the comment that a 200-employee company with up to $1 billion in annual revenue will qualify as small under the proposed higher size standards and would compete with smaller firms for SBA's loans. It is very unlikely that a company with $1 billion in revenue will qualify for or need SBA's financial assistance. SBA provides business loan assistance only to those businesses for which the desired credit is not available on reasonable terms from non-Federal sources (13 CFR 120.101). A firm with that level of revenue would likely have access to credit with reasonable terms from non-Federal sources, making it ineligible for SBA's assistance.
With respect to the comment that truly small businesses are not able get SBA's loans, SBA has initiated fee relief for certain SBA-guaranteed loans to encourage more lending to smaller businesses. Since 2013, both the up-front guaranty fee and the lender's annual service fee for SBA's 7(a) loans of $150,000 or less have been set at zero. In addition, in 2014 the Agency introduced SBA Veterans Advantage, which reduced the up-front guaranty fee to zero on its Express loans of $150,001 up to $350,000 to qualified small businesses owned by veterans and other
SBA does not agree with the commenters' assertion that certain milestones and goals provide impetus for changing size standards (
SBA finds it difficult to evaluate the suggestion that size standards should not exceed 300 employees, because the comment included no supporting data or analysis. Furthermore, the proposed changes would increase the standard to no more than 250 employees in any of the affected NAICS codes. As a result, this comment is not relevant to the proposed rule.
SBA does not accept the suggestion to change the basis for the size standards for wholesale trade industries from number of employees to annual receipts. In the May 19, 2014 proposed rule, SBA fully explained its Methodology, including why it uses the employee based size standards for certain industries, and receipts based size standards for others. For industries that are highly capital intensive, have low operational costs relative to their receipts, show a variation of firms within industry by stage of production or degree of vertical integration, and are more horizontally structured, SBA uses employee based size standards. Most mining, manufacturing and wholesale trade industries fall under this category. For most services retail trade, and others with more seasonal and part-time employment (such as hospitality related industries), SBA uses receipts based size standards. Because of a wide variation in values of products sold by different types of wholesalers and retailers covered by this rule, receipts are not an appropriate measure of size for those firms. Moreover, the commenters did not specify what level of receipts based size standards would be appropriate.
SBA does not agree with the argument that the proposed increase in size standards for the wholesale and retail trade industries would affect the ability of firms to compete and win Federal contracts set aside for small businesses, because the increases only apply to SBA's financial programs and other federal programs that use SBA's size standards. As stated in the proposed rule, the increases to the size standards for the wholesale and retail trade industries do not apply to Federal Government procurement programs. Similarly, the proposed increases to size standards for wholesale and retail trade industries will have no effects on size standards in other industries. None of the proposed size standards was over 250 employees. The 1,500-employee size standard that the commenters pointed out only applies to a few industries comprised of firms that are significantly larger than those in most other industries. Such examples would be Petroleum Refineries, Aircraft Manufacturing, Air Transportation, and Telecommunications Carriers. Small business size standards define businesses as small, relative to the size of all firms in the industry. In industries where enterprises are very large, a much higher size standard than for most other industries is warranted. Such industries and size standards were not the subject of the proposed rule that this rule finalizes. The commenter who opposed the SBA's proposal to retain the 500-employee size standard under the nonmanufacturer rule, except for stating that his business cannot compete with larger small businesses with up to 500 employees, did not provide any industry or Federal market data to support this point.
As stated in the proposed rule, firms in Wholesale Trade and Retail Trade industries generally carry multiple items from different industries as inventory, and therefore identify themselves with multiple NAICS codes. Different size standards for individual industries in Wholesale Trade and Retail Trade under the nonmanufacturer rule would further complicate the contracting decision process, which already entails the decision to establish an applicable manufacturing industry, along with its size standard, associated with manufacturing, production, or processing of the product being procured. SBA believes the current 500-employee size standard makes sense because Wholesale and Retail Trade firms have to compete with manufacturers for supply or product contracts set aside for small businesses, and the anchor and most common size standard for the manufacturing industries is 500 employees. SBA believes that it is appropriate to retain the current 500-employee size standard in the nonmanufacturer rule in order to keep Wholesale and Retail Trade firms competitive with manufacturers.
The revised size standards will have no impact on the ability of small businesses to continue participating in Federal Government procurement programs because their competitive status will not change. Wholesalers, dealers, distributors, retailers,
To qualify as small on supply or product contracts set aside for small businesses, a business concern must either: (1) Be the manufacturer or producer of the end item being procured (and the end item must be manufactured or produced in the United States) itself; (2) qualify as a “nonmanufacturer;” or (3) be considered a kit assembler. See 13 CFR 121.406. In general, to qualify as a small business nonmanufacturer the concern must: (i) Have no more than 500 employees; (ii) be primarily engaged in the retail or wholesale trade and normally sell the type of item being supplied; (iii) take ownership or
It seems that there exist misconceptions about whether industry size standards for Sectors 42 and 44-45 apply to Federal Government procurement programs. As stated elsewhere in this rule, the industry size standards adopted in this rule do not apply to Federal procurements. Under 13 CFR 121.402, Federal agencies may not use NAICS codes and their size standards in Sector 42 (Wholesale Trade) or Retail Trade (Sector 44-45) for procurement of goods or supplies. Those codes and size standards apply, rather, to SBA's small business lending programs and other Federal Government programs, but not to Federal procurements. For the Federal Government's procurement of manufactured goods, supplies, or other products, the Contracting Officer must use the NAICS code and size standard for the industry that manufactures, produces, or processes the products or supplies being procured. Any nonmanufacturer firm with up to 500 employees that meets the requirements of the nonmanufacturer rule may bid as a small business on those opportunities. See 13 CFR 121.406.
Based on the results of the analysis of industry data provided in the proposed rule and evaluation of public comments on the proposed rule as discussed above, SBA is adopting all changes to the employee based size standards in Sectors 42 and 44-45, as published in the May 19, 2014 proposed rule.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” for purposes of Executive Order 12866. To help explain the need for this rule and the rule's potential benefits and costs, SBA is providing below a Cost Benefit Analysis as it did in the May 19, 2014 proposed rule. This rule is also not a “major rule” under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 800).
The revised size standards in Wholesale Trade and Retail Trade sectors better reflect the economic characteristics of small businesses in the affected industries and maximize the benefits they receive from Federal programs, other than from Federal procurement programs. SBA's mission is to aid and assist small businesses through a variety of financial, procurement, business development, and advocacy programs. To determine the intended beneficiaries of these programs, SBA establishes distinct definitions of which businesses are deemed small businesses. The Small Business Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 632(3)(a)) delegates to SBA's Administrator the responsibility for establishing small business definitions. The Act also requires that small business definitions vary to reflect industry differences. The Jobs Act also requires SBA to review all size standards and make necessary adjustments to reflect market conditions. Public Law 111-240, sec. 1344, Sep. 27, 2010. The supplementary information section of the May 19, 2014 proposed rule explained SBA's Methodology for analyzing the size standards of industries covered by this rule. SBA makes the Methodology available on its Web site at
The most significant benefit to businesses becoming small under these increases is that they are now eligible for SBA's financial assistance programs. In addition, growing small businesses that are close to exceeding the current size standards can retain their small business status under the higher size standards, thereby enabling them to continue their participation in those programs. These include SBA's 7(a), CDC/504, and Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) programs.
SBA estimates that in the 47 industries in Sector 42 and Sector 44-45 whose size standards are being revised, nearly 4,000 firms, previously not small, will become small under the revised size standards, and therefore eligible for SBA's financial assistance programs and other Federal programs, except for procurement. That is a 1.1 percent increase to the number of firms classified as small under the current employee based size standards in those sectors. For the industries reviewed in this rule, the data indicate that it is mostly businesses much smaller than the current size standards that use the SBA's 7(a) and 504 loan programs. Based on the fiscal years 2012-2014 data, SBA estimates up to about 40 loans totaling between $20 million and $25 million could be made under its 7(a) and CDC/504 programs to these newly defined small businesses under the new size standards. Increasing the size standards will likely result in more small business guaranteed loans to businesses in those industries, but it is impractical to try to estimate exactly the number and total volumes of loans. There are two reasons for this: (1) Under the Jobs Act, SBA can now guarantee substantially larger loans than in the past; and (2) as described above, the Jobs Act established a higher alternative size standard for business concerns that do not meet the size standards for their industry. Therefore, SBA finds it difficult to quantify the actual impact of these size standards on its 7(a) and 504 loan programs.
Newly defined small businesses will also benefit from SBA's EIDL program. The EIDL program is contingent on the number and severity of disaster occurrences, and therefore SBA cannot make a meaningful estimate of this impact.
Because NAICS codes in the Wholesale Trade and Retail Trade sectors and their industry size standards do not apply to Federal procurement programs, and because SBA is making no change to the 500-employee size standard under the nonmanufacturer rule, this rule will not affect participation in Federal procurement programs. However, retaining the current 500-employee size standard
More businesses will benefit from a variety of Federal regulatory and other programs that use SBA's size standards. Such benefits may include, but are not limited to, reduced fees, less paperwork, or exemption from compliance or other regulatory requirements.
To the extent that those 4,000 newly defined additional small firms under the revised size standards become active in seeking SBA's financial assistance, the changes may entail some additional administrative costs to the Government because of more businesses being eligible for the assistance. For example, there may be more firms seeking SBA's guaranteed loans. It will not, however, increase the number of firms eligible to enroll in the System of Award Management (SAM) database, because applicants to SBA's loans are not required to register in SAM. It also will not increase the number of firms eligible to seek certification as 8(a) BD, HUBZone, WOSB, EDWOSB, SDVOSB, or SDB status, because revisions to industry size standards in the Wholesale Trade and Retail Trade sectors do not apply to Federal procurement. Among those newly defined small businesses seeking SBA's financial assistance, there could be some additional costs associated with compliance and verification of small business status. However, SBA believes that these added administrative costs will be minimal because mechanisms are already in place to handle these requirements.
The revisions to the existing employee based size standards in Sector 42 and Sector 44-45 are consistent with SBA's statutory mandate to assist those businesses that it considers small. This regulatory action promotes the Administration's objectives. One of SBA's goals in support of the Administration's objectives is to help small businesses succeed through fair and equitable access to capital and credit, Government contracts, and management and technical assistance. Although these revised standards will not increase access to Federal contracts, they will ensure that intended beneficiaries have access to other small business programs designed to assist them.
A description of the need for this regulatory action and benefits and costs associated with this action that relate to Executive Order 13563 are included above in the Cost Benefit Analysis under Executive Order 12866.
In an effort to engage interested parties in this action, SBA has presented its size standards Methodology (discussed above under
Individuals and business persons who have expressed interest in the size standards for one or more NAICS sectors receive a copy of SBA proposed and final rules. SBA sent copies of the May 19, 2014 proposed rule to the interested individuals, seeking their comments on proposed changes to employee based size standards for a number of wholesale trade and retail trade industries, and the Agency's proposal to retain the 500-employee nonmanufacturer size standard. SBA also published the proposed rule in the
Additionally, SBA sent letters to the Directors of the Offices of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) at several Federal agencies with considerable procurement responsibilities requesting their feedback on how the agencies use SBA's size standards and whether current size standards meet their programmatic needs (both procurement and non-procurement). SBA considered all input, suggestions, recommendations, and relevant information obtained from industry groups, individual businesses, and Federal agencies in preparing this rule.
The review of employee based size standards in NAICS Sector 42 and Sector 44-45 is consistent with Executive Order 13563, Sec. 6, calling for retrospective analyses of existing rules. The last comprehensive review of size standards was in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Since then, except for periodic adjustments for inflation to monetary based size standards (most recently, effective July 14, 2014; see 79 FR 33647), most reviews of size standards were limited to a few specific industries in response to requests from the public and Federal agencies. SBA recognizes that changes in industry structure and the Federal marketplace over time have rendered existing size standards for some industries no longer supportable by current data. Accordingly, in 2007, SBA began a comprehensive review of its size standards to ensure that existing size standards have supportable bases and to revise them when necessary. In addition, the Jobs Act requires SBA to conduct a detailed review of all size standards and to make appropriate adjustments to reflect market conditions. Specifically, the Jobs Act requires SBA to conduct a detailed review of at least one-third of all size standards during every 18-month period from the date of its enactment, and do a complete review of all size standards not less than once every five years thereafter. Public Law 111-240, sec. 1344, Sep. 27, 2010.
This action meets applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have retroactive or preemptive effect.
For purposes of Executive Order 13132, SBA has determined that this rule does 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. Therefore, SBA has determined that this rule has no federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment.
For the purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Ch. 35, SBA has determined that this rule does not impose any new reporting or record keeping requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), this rule may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses in Sector 42, Wholesale Trade, and some small businesses in Sector 44-45, Retail Trade. As described above, this rule may affect small businesses seeking loans under SBA's 7(a), 504/CDC, and Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) programs, and assistance under other Federal small business programs, except procurement.
Immediately below, SBA sets forth a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) of this rule addressing the following questions: (1) What are the need for and objectives of the rule? (2) What are SBA's description and estimate of the number of small businesses to which the rule will apply? (3) What are the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule? (4) What are the relevant federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the rule? and (5) What alternatives will allow the Agency to accomplish its regulatory objectives while minimizing the impact on small businesses?
Changes in industry structure, technological changes, productivity growth, mergers and acquisitions, and updated industry definitions have changed the structure of many industries in Sector 42 and Sector 44-45. Such changes can be sufficient to support revisions to current size standards for some industries. Based on the analysis of the latest data available, SBA believes that the revised standards in this rule more appropriately reflect the size of businesses that need Federal assistance. The Jobs Act also requires SBA to review all size standards and make necessary adjustments to reflect market conditions.
SBA estimates that nearly 4,000 more firms in Sector 42 and Sector 44-45 will become small for financial assistance under the revised employee based size standards. That represents 1.1 percent of total firms that are small under current employee based size standards in all such industries in those sectors. The adopted rule will enable more small businesses to retain their small business status for a longer period. Additionally, many firms that may have exceeded the current size standards and lost their eligibility for SBA's financial assistance and other Federal programs for small businesses will regain eligibility for those programs under the revised employee based size standards.
The size standard changes impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on small businesses. Qualifying for SBA's financial assistance does not require that businesses register in the System for Award Management (SAM) database and certify in SAM that they are small at least once annually. However, some newly qualified small businesses under the revised size standards may want to participate in the Federal Government procurement and other programs that require firms to register and certify in SAM. Small businesses may become aware from this rule that they have been eligible to sell goods and supplies to the Federal Government under the 500-employee nonmanufacturer size standard. Therefore, to participate as a prime contractor, those businesses must comply with SAM requirements. There are no costs associated with either SAM registration or annual recertification. Changing size standards alters the access to SBA's financial assistance programs and other Federal programs that assist small businesses, but does not impose a regulatory burden because they neither regulate nor control business behavior.
Under Section 3(a)(2)(C) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632(3)(a)(2)(C), Federal agencies must use SBA's size standards to define a small business, unless specifically authorized by statute to do otherwise. In 1995, SBA published in the
However, the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(3)(a)(2)(C)) and SBA's regulations (13 CFR 121.903) allow Federal agencies to develop different size standards if they believe that SBA's size standards are not appropriate for their programs, with the approval of SBA's Administrator. The SBA's regulations (see 13 CFR 121.903(c)) authorize a Federal agency to establish an alternative small business definition for the sole purpose of performing a regulatory flexibility analysis pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601(3)), after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration.
By law, SBA is required to develop numerical size standards for establishing eligibility for Federal small business assistance programs. Other than varying size standards by industry and changing the size measures, no practical alternative exists to the systems of numerical size standards.
Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement, Government property, Grant programs—business, Individuals with disabilities, Loan programs—business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, SBA amends 13 CFR part 121 as follows:
15 U.S.C. 632, 634(b)(6), 662, and 694a(9).
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Final rule.
This rule finalizes, without change, the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA or Agency) June 12, 2014 interim final rule that adjusted monetary small business size standards (
This rule is effective on January 25, 2016.
Carl Jordan, Office of Size Standards, (202) 205-6618 or
SBA's small business size regulations require that the Agency examine the impact of inflation on monetary size standards (
In addition, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Jobs Act), Public Law 111-240, sec. 1344, Sep. 27, 2010, requires SBA to review all size standards every five years and make necessary adjustments to reflect current industry and Federal market conditions.
In accordance with the Jobs Act, SBA has completed a review of all industry specific monetary based size standards using the latest industry and Federal contracting data available. As part of that review, SBA did not take into consideration inflation that had occurred since 2008. In the IFR, SBA provided reasons for not considering inflation as part of the comprehensive review. Specifically, SBA could not combine static industry data with the fluctuating inflation during the course of the review that produced a series of rules for different sectors at different times. Trying to do so would have resulted in different inflation factors for different industries, thereby making size standards inconsistent among industries.
On June 12, 2014, SBA issued an IFR (79 FR 33647), increasing by 8.73 percent all industry specific monetary small business size standards (except the $750,000 receipts based size standard for agricultural enterprises established by the Small Business Act). The adjustment represented inflation, as measured by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) price index, since the previous inflation adjustment published in July 2008. The 8.73 percent increase was applied to 492 industry specific size standards (487 receipts based and five assets based) and three program specific size standards, namely: (1) Tangible net worth and net income based alternative size standards for the SBIC Program (13 CFR 121.301(c)); (2) Sales of Government Property Other Than Manufacturing (13 CFR 121.502); and (3) Stockpile Purchases (13 CFR 121.512). For the reasons SBA provided in the June 12, 2014 IFR, SBA did not increase the tangible net worth and net income based alternative size standards for SBA's 504 and 7(a) Loan Programs (13 CFR 121.301(b)). Increases became effective July 14, 2014.
The IFR requested comments from the public on SBA's methodology of using the GDP price index for adjusting size standards and suggestions for alternative measures of inflation, on whether SBA should adjust employee based size standards for labor productivity growth and technical changes similar to adjusting monetary
A construction company commented in favor of increasing size standards for inflation. The commenter recommended, however, that SBA use the Consumer Price Index (CPI), rather than the GDP price index that the Agency used.
While supporting increases to size standards for inflation and using the GDP price index, another commenter recommended that SBA round the results in increments of $100,000 rather than $500,000. It seemed “. . . arbitrary and too generous for some and harmful to others,” the commenter noted. The rounding reduced some size standards by $200,000—for example, $27.7 million to $27.5 million—and this will have an impact on a lot of companies, the commenter maintained.
Fully supporting size standards increases for inflation, one commenter stated that the increase to the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) size standard allows SBICs to effectively deploy capital to growing small businesses. The commenter recommended that SBA allow automatic, formulaic updates to the size standards based on the GDP price index without prior public participation.
Another commenter supported a greater increase to the tangible net worth and net income based alternative size standard that applies to the SBIC Program. The commenter argued that the increase should be greater because SBA has not increased the alternative size standard for the SBIC Program since the 1994 inflation adjustment. For the increase in the June 12, 2014 IFR SBA used the GDP price index, which resulted in an increase to the SBIC alternative size standard to $19.5 million in tangible net worth and $6.5 million in average net income after federal income tax, the commenter explained. Furthermore, the commenter pointed out that had SBA used the increase in the GDP price index since the 1994 adjustment, the resulting size standard would be $26.5 million in tangible net worth and $8.8 million in average net income after federal income tax. The commenter further contended that Producer Price Index (PPI) could be a better index to use for the SBIC Program because most of the SBIC investment goes to small manufacturers. PPI, in the commenter's opinion, would raise the size standard to $31.3 million in tangible net worth and $10.4 million in average net income after federal income tax. Finally, the commenter suggested adopting $20 million in tangible net worth and $7.0 million in average net income after federal income tax. The commenter also raised concerns about the definition of “tangible net worth.” Specifically, the commenter pointed out that for the SBIC Program the only intangible element SBA deducts from net worth to determine tangible net worth is “goodwill.” The commenter recommended that the Agency should allow the deduction of all intangibles, not just goodwill, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
It should be noted that the subject rule was an IFR, seeking public comments, rather than a proposed rule. Therefore, the revised size standards in the IFR were effective July 14, 2014. The IFR applied the 8.73 percent increase for inflation to all size standards across the board. Any significant deviation from that would require a separate rulemaking action for the SBIC Program. SBA can consider modifying the size standard for the SBIC Program in the future, provided that relevant data and program needs would support a size standard that is different from the one adopted in this rule. The “tangible net worth” measure of business size applies to the alternative size standards for SBA's financial programs. Accordingly, any concerns or issues regarding the definition of “tangible net worth” are better addressed to SBA's Office of Investment and Innovation.
SBA recognizes that inflation may not impact every industry or program equally. SBA's small business size standards apply to a wide variety of Federal Government programs, including the SBIC Program, and to businesses engaged in multiple industries. Although SBICs may support firms in many manufacturing industries, it is not limited to the manufacturing sector. For these reasons, SBA uses a broad measure of inflation for the entire U.S. economy to determine the most appropriate rate of inflation by which to adjust all of its monetary size standards. In the IFR, SBA explains in detail why the GDP price index, rather than other measures such as the PPI, is the most appropriate measure of inflation for adjusting size standards. SBA's decisions not to adjust the SBIC alternative size standard from 1994 to the 2008 inflation adjustment were dictated by SBIC's programmatic considerations. Because the $20 million tangible net worth and $7 million net income size standards recommended by the commenter are very close to SBA's
SBA received six comments on the size standard for the Dredging and Cleanup Services exception under NAICS 237990, Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction. The June 12, 2014 IFR increased the size standard for Dredging and Cleanup Services from $25.5 million to $27.5 million in average annual receipts. Four of the six commenters strongly supported the increase, while two opposed it. The four commenters supporting the increase maintained that the increase is vital to account for the escalating costs of labor, equipment, and equipment maintenance. They also stated that it will allow firms that grew because of the costs of inflation to remain small and eligible for Federal procurement opportunities for small businesses.
One of the commenters supporting the increase to the dredging size standard for inflation suggested that SBA take the four largest costs on dredging projects (
Two dredging contractors, on the other hand, stated that the increase is unjustified, and strongly oppose it. They argued that the recent increase to the dredging size standard accounted for inflationary factors and was sufficiently substantial to offset any need for an adjustment for inflation. One opined that a reasonable amount of time should lapse prior to increasing the size standard again. Representing a large marine construction and dredging contractor, another commenter argued that the increase to the dredging size standard reduces his company's (and presumably other similar businesses) potential bid market while enhancing the market power of the “big smalls,” allowing them to dominate the “small smalls” further. The commenter maintained that fuel prices are actually down while newer engines burn less fuel. Advances in automation, reduced plastic pipe prices, and improved engine metallurgy are a few examples of improved cost efficiencies a firm must adopt to stay competitive, the commenter added.
For the comprehensive review, SBA reviewed size standards on a Sector by Sector basis over a period of several years. Including inflation in the analysis would have meant applying different inflation rates to different sectors. Specifically, the amount of inflation adjustment would be lower for sectors reviewed earlier in the cycle and higher for those reviewed later, resulting in inconsistent size standards across sectors and industries. To avoid this, SBA decided to review all monetary based size standards for inflation separately at one time upon completion of the review of all monetary based industry size standards.
In the IFR, SBA increased all monetary based industry size standards by 8.73 percent across the board for inflation, including those that were increased more substantially than the dredging size standard under the comprehensive review. SBA's regulations require that the Agency examine the impact of inflation on size standards at least once every five years and adjust them as needed. Five years had passed between the current inflation adjustment and the previous adjustment issued in July 2008. A majority of the commenters argued that the increase in the dredging size standard is warranted given the increases in fuel, labor, insurance and equipment costs. Moreover, based on the Federal procurement data for fiscal years 2012-2014, no additional dredging firms would gain small business status under the adjusted size standard, suggesting that there would be very minimal impact, if any, on firms below the previous $25.5 million size standard. For these reasons, SBA is adopting $27.5 million in average annual receipts as the size standard for Dredging and Surface Cleanup Activities exception under NAICS 237990, as published in the IFR.
An association representing architects expressed concerns that the increase in size standard for Architectural Services (NAICS 541310) from $7.0 million to $7.5 million will pose additional burdens on small architecture firms and does not reflect the current business environment in the profession.
The association stated that the SBA's February 10, 2012 final rule on Sector 54 (Professional, Technical and Scientific Services) notes that “the Administration's goal is to increase the size standard participation to 42 percent of each applicable industry.” The association stated that under the current $7 million size standard for architecture, over 95.5 percent of firms qualify as small businesses, more than double the goal, and raising it to $7.5 million will increase that to 96 percent. The association maintained that there have been significant deflationary pressures on the cost of design and construction projects due to the economic crisis, fewer projects, and increased competition. There has not been sufficient inflation in the sector to justify increasing the size standard, the association added. The association further maintained that the size standard does not reflect the way architects conduct business. For example, an architect may have to hire engineers to complete building projects, and in some cases, similar to travel agencies, an architectural firm can pass through up to 50 percent of its fees to subcontractors, the association added.
The association concluded that additional increase to the size standard will hurt small businesses by allowing larger firms with greater resources and marketing dollars to push out smaller firms without those resources.
The association's statement that in the February 10, 2012 final rule SBA noted that the Administration's goal is to increase the size standard participation to 42 percent of each applicable industry is not correct. SBA has not established such a goal. For the majority of industries the current size standards include 90-95 percent of firms as small, and in some industries more. Thus, the size standard for architects including 95-96 percent of firms as small is not inconsistent with most other industries. Moreover, although the $7.5 million size standard for architectural services includes 95-96 percent of firms, it includes less than 50 percent of total industry receipts and less than 30 percent of Federal contracting dollars.
SBA does not agree with the argument that, because architectural firms subcontract up to 50 percent of their work to other disciplines, the receipts based size standard does not reflect the industry. In response to the comments on the March 16, 2011 proposed rule that SBA should allow architectural firms to exclude subcontracting costs when calculating the receipts, SBA provided in the February 10, 2012 final rule (see page 7502) an extensive explanation of how the Agency calculates receipts and what a company can and cannot exclude from the revenue computation.
More importantly, it should be noted that the business model of architectural firms is not comparable with that of travel agencies. A travel agency may collect the full value of a cruise, flight,
SBA also does not agree with the association's argument that an additional increase to the size standard will hurt small businesses by allowing larger firms with greater resources to push out smaller firms without those resources. First, it did not provide any data or analysis to support the argument. Second, the data from the Federal Procurement Data System—Next Generation (FPDS-NG) do not suggest that the increase in the size standard for architectural services from $4.5 million to $7 million in 2012 has hurt firms below the prior $4.5 million size standard. For example, during fiscal years 2010-2011 (
An elected official also commented on the interim final rule with questions on the rate of increase in the size standards for NAICS Subsector 562, Waste Management and Remediation Services. First, the commenter asked whether the rate of increase in the size standards for waste management service businesses reflects a similar increase in the GDP inflation rate and if not, what factors have been used to justify a larger increase. Second, the commenter asked, if there is a discrepancy, whether the amount of the increase comported with SBA's own protocol used in other business increases. Third, the commenter asked whether there was a large discrepancy in size of businesses in this category or rates of inflation between regions of the country, and if so whether these discrepancies are significant enough to warrant region-specific NAICS size rules.
SBA establishes small business size standards only on a nationwide basis. SBA believes it would be unmanageable to establish and use size standards if they were established on a regional basis. First, the data SBA uses to review or update size standards are generally limited to the national level. Second, size standards are used to determine eligibility for various Federal programs, including Federal Government contracting, and SBA loan programs. If the size standards were to vary by geographic region, it would be very difficult to use them. For example, it would be difficult to determine what size standards to apply when businesses located in one region bid for Federal work to be performed in another region. Similarly, it would be difficult to determine eligibility for an SBA loan when a firm has operations in more than one region.
Another commenter stated that 98 percent of businesses (including non-employer firms) are “truly small” having only 1-19 employees. The
What constitutes a small business in other countries does not apply and has no relevance to SBA's small business definitions and U.S. Government programs that use them. Depending on their economic and political realities, other countries have their own programs and priorities that can be very different from those in the U.S. Accordingly, small business definitions other countries use for their Government programs can be vastly different from those established by SBA for U.S. Government programs. From time to time, the U.S. Congress has used different thresholds, sometimes below the SBA's thresholds, to define small firms under certain laws or programs, but those thresholds apply only to those laws and programs and generally are of no relevance to SBA's size standards. SBA establishes size standards, in accordance with the Small Business Act, for purposes of establishing eligibility for Federal small business procurement and financial assistance programs. The primary statutory definition of a small business is that the firm is not dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, rather than representing the smallest size within an industry, SBA's size standards generally designate the largest size that a business concern can be relative to other businesses in the industry and still qualify as small for Federal Government programs that provide benefits to small businesses.
SBA does not agree that increases in average loan amounts and decreases in smaller loans are solely due to the increases in size standards for two reasons. First, with the passage of the Jobs Act in 2010, Congress increased the limits for SBA's 7(a) loans from $2 million to $5 million, for CDC/504 loans from $1.5 million to $5.5 million, and for 7(a) express loans from $300,000 to $1 million. Second, at the same time, Congress also increased the tangible net worth and net income limits of the alternative size standard from $8.5 million and $3 million to $15 million and $5 million, respectively. Under the alternative size standard, businesses that are above their industry size standards can qualify for SBA's loans. These statutory changes may be important factors for the purported changes in SBA's lending. However, such changes do not necessarily mean that truly small businesses are getting fewer loans now than in 2008. In fact, businesses with less than 10 employees received a total of $12.1 billion in loans through SBA's 7(a) and 504 Loan Programs in 2014, as compared to $10.6 billion in 2008. That was in increase of more than 14 percent.
With due consideration of all public comments as discussed above, in this final rule, SBA is adopting the increases in all industry specific monetary size standards for inflation, as published in the IFR. SBA is also adopting the increases in three program specific size standards, namely the SBIC Program, Sales of Government Property (Other Than Manufacturing), and Stockpile Purchases. Similarly, SBA is also deleting references to the Surety Bond Guarantee size standards for contracts awarded in 2005 in the Presidentially declared disaster areas following Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, and the determination date for eligibility under the Agency's Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) Program in connection with the same 2005 hurricanes, as published in the IFR.
Accordingly, SBA is issuing this final rule to adopt, without change, the interim final rule published on June 12, 2014.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” for purposes of Executive Order 12866. To help explain the need for this rule and the rule's potential benefits and costs, SBA provided a Cost Benefit Analysis in the June 14, 2014 interim final rule. This is also not a “major rule” under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 800).
SBA's statutory mission is to aid and assist small businesses through various financial, procurement, business development, and advocacy programs. To assist the intended beneficiaries of these programs effectively, SBA must establish distinct definitions of which businesses are deemed small businesses. The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(3)(a)) (Act) delegates to the SBA Administrator the responsibility for establishing small business definitions. The Act also requires that small business definitions vary to reflect industry differences. The supplementary information to this final rule explains the approach SBA follows when adjusting size standards for inflation. Based on the rise in the general level of prices, SBA believes that an inflation adjustment to size standards is necessary to reflect small businesses in industries with monetary size standards.
The most significant benefit to businesses of this final rule is to enable those that have exceeded size standards simply due to inflation to regain eligibility for Federal small business assistance programs. This will also help businesses to retain small business eligibility for Federal programs for a longer period. These programs include SBA's financial assistance programs, economic injury disaster loans, and Federal procurement programs intended for small businesses. Federal agencies use SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program, Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUBZone), Women-owned Small Businesses (WOSB), Economically Disadvantaged Women-owned Small Businesses (EDWOSB), and Service-disabled Veteran-owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB) Programs
Three groups will benefit from the revisions of size standards in this rule: (1) Some businesses that are above the current size standards may gain small business status under the higher, inflation-adjusted size standards, thereby enabling them to participate in Federal small business assistance programs; (2) growing small businesses that are close to exceeding the current size standards will be able to retain their small business status under the higher size standards, thereby enabling them to continue their participation in the programs; and (3) Federal agencies that will have a larger pool of small businesses from which to draw for their small business procurement programs.
Based on the FPDS-NG data for fiscal years 2012-2014, SBA estimates that firms gaining small business status under the inflation adjusted size standards could receive Federal contracts totaling $150 million to $175 million annually under SBA's small business, 8(a), SDB, HUBZone, WOSB, EDWOSB, and SDVOSB Programs, and unrestricted procurements. The added competition for many of these procurements can also result in lower prices to the Government for procurements reserved for small businesses, but SBA cannot quantify this benefit.
Based on the fiscal years 2012-2014 data, SBA estimates about 70 additional loans totaling about $30 million could be made to these newly defined small businesses under SBA's 7(a) and 504 Loan Programs under the adjusted size standards. Increasing the size standards will likely result in more guaranteed loans to small businesses in these industries, but it is impractical to try to estimate the exact number and total amount of loans. There are two reasons for this: (1) Under the Jobs Act, SBA can now guarantee substantially larger loans than in the past; and (2) as described above, the Jobs Act established an alternative size standard ($15 million in tangible net worth and $5 million in net income after income taxes) for business concerns that do not meet the size standards for their industry. Therefore, SBA finds it difficult to quantify the actual impact of these inflation adjusted size standards on its 7(a) and 504 Loan Programs.
Newly defined small businesses will also benefit from SBA's Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) Program. Since this program is contingent on the occurrence and severity of a disaster in the future, SBA cannot make a meaningful estimate of this impact.
In addition, newly defined small businesses will also benefit through reduced fees, less paperwork, and fewer compliance requirements that are available to small businesses through the Federal Government.
To the extent that those nearly 8,700 additional small firms could become active in Federal procurement programs, the adjusted size standards in this final rule may entail some additional administrative costs to the Government as a result of more businesses being eligible for Federal small business programs. For example, there will be more firms seeking SBA's guaranteed loans, more firms eligible for enrollment in the System of Award Management (SAM) database, and more firms seeking certification as 8(a) or HUBZone firms or qualifying for small business, WOSB, EDWOSB, SDVOSB, and SDB status. Among those newly defined small businesses seeking SBA's assistance, there could be some additional costs associated with compliance and verification of small business status and protests of small business status. However, SBA believes that these added administrative costs will be minimal because mechanisms are already in place to handle these requirements.
In some cases, Federal Government contracts may have higher costs. With a greater number of businesses defined as small, Federal agencies may choose to set aside more contracts for competition among small businesses, rather than using full and open competition. The movement from unrestricted to small business set-aside contracting might result in competition among fewer total bidders, although there will be more small businesses eligible to submit offers. However, the additional costs associated with fewer bidders are expected to be minor since, by law, procurements may be set aside for small businesses, or set aside for competition among 8(a), HUBZone, WOSB, EDWOSB, or SDVOSB Program participants only if awards are expected to be made at fair and reasonable prices. In addition, there may be higher costs when more full and open contracts are awarded to HUBZone businesses that receive price evaluation preferences.
The size standards adjustments in this final rule may have some distributional effects among large and small businesses. Although SBA cannot estimate with certainty the actual outcome of the gains and losses among small and large businesses, it can identify several probable impacts. There may be a transfer of some Federal contracts to small businesses from large businesses. Large businesses may have fewer Federal contract opportunities as Federal agencies decide to set aside more contracts for small businesses. In addition, some Federal contracts may be awarded to HUBZone concerns instead of large businesses since these firms may be eligible for a price evaluation preference for contracts when they compete on a full and open basis.
Similarly, some businesses defined as small under the current size standards may obtain fewer Federal contracts due to the increased competition from more businesses defined as small under the proposed size standards. This transfer may be offset by a greater number of Federal procurements set aside for all small businesses. The number of newly defined and expanding small businesses that are willing and able to sell to the Federal Government will limit the potential transfer of contracts from large and currently defined small businesses. SBA cannot estimate the potential distributional impacts of these transfers with any degree of precision.
The revisions to the current monetary based industry size standards for 481 industries and 11 “exceptions” and to the monetary based size standards for other specific programs are consistent with SBA's statutory mandate to assist small business. This regulatory action promotes the Administration's objectives. One of SBA's goals in support of the Administration's objectives is to help individual small businesses succeed through fair and equitable access to capital and credit, Government contracts, and management and technical assistance. Reviewing and modifying size standards, when appropriate, including periodic inflation adjustments, ensure that intended beneficiaries have access to small business programs designed to assist them.
A description of the need for this regulatory action and benefits and costs
In an effort to engage interested parties in this action, SBA gave appropriate consideration to all input, suggestions, recommendations, and relevant information obtained from industry groups, individual businesses, and Federal agencies in preparing this final rule.
The review of size standards in industries and financial assistance programs covered in this final rule is consistent with Executive Order 13563, Section 6, calling for retrospective analyses of existing rules. The last inflationary adjustment of monetary based size standards occurred in July 2008.
In addition to the inflationary adjustment of monetary based size standards published in the June 12, 2014 interim final rule, as part of the comprehensive size standards review, SBA reviewed all the receipts and assets based industry size standards and made necessary adjustments to ensure that they reflect current industry and market conditions.
This action meets applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have retroactive or preemptive effect.
For purposes of Executive Order 13132, SBA has determined that this final rule 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. Therefore, SBA has determined that this final rule has no federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment.
For the purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Ch. 35, SBA has determined that this final rule will not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), this rule may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses in the industries covered by the rule. As described above, this rule may affect small businesses seeking Federal contracts, loans under SBA's 7(a), 504 and Economic Injury Disaster Loan Programs, and assistance under other Federal small business programs.
Immediately below, SBA sets forth a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) of this rule addressing the following questions: (1) What are the need for and objective of the rule? (2) What are SBA's description and estimate of the number of small businesses to which the rule will apply? (3) What are the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule? (4) What are the relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the rule? and (5) What alternatives will allow the Agency to accomplish its regulatory objectives while minimizing the impact on small businesses?
As discussed in the supplemental information, the revision to the monetary based size standards for inflation more appropriately defines small businesses. This final rule restores small business eligibility in real terms to businesses that have grown above the size standard due to inflation rather than due to increased business activity. A review of the latest inflation indexes indicates that inflation has increased sufficiently to warrant an increase to the current monetary based size standards.
Section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(3)(a)) gives SBA the authority to establish and change size standards. Within its administrative discretion, SBA implemented a policy in its regulations to review the effect of inflation on size standards at least once every five years (13 CFR 121.102(c)) and make any changes as appropriate. As discussed in the supplementary information, inflation has increased at a sufficient level since the time of the 2008 final rule to warrant a further adjustment to size standards at this time.
SBA estimates that about 8,500 additional firms will become small because of increased receipts based size standards of 476 industries and 11 “exceptions.” That represents 0.2 percent of total firms that are small under current monetary based size standards. This will result in an increase in the small business share of total industry receipts in those industries from 31.2 percent under the current size standards to 31.8 percent under the inflation-adjusted size standards. Due to the adjustment of assets based size standards in five industries, about 170 additional firms will gain small business status in those industries. This will increase the small business share of total assets in those industries from 8.8 percent to 9.4 percent. The size standards adopted in this final rule will enable businesses that have exceeded the size standards for their industries to regain small business status. It will also help currently small businesses to retain their small business status for a longer period. Many firms may have lost their eligibility and find it difficult to compete at current size standards with companies that are significantly larger than they are. SBA believes the competitive impact will be positive for existing small businesses and for those that exceed the size standards but are on the very low end of those that are not small. They might otherwise be called or referred to as mid-sized businesses, although SBA only defines what is small; entities that are not small are “other than small.”
The inflation adjustment to size standards imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on small businesses. However, qualifying for Federal procurement and a number of other programs requires that businesses register in the SAM database and certify in SAM that they are small at least once annually. Therefore, newly eligible small businesses opting to participate in those programs must comply with SAM requirements. Businesses whose status changes in SAM from other than small to small must update their SAM profiles and complete the “representations and certifications” sections of SAM. However, there are no costs associated with SAM registration or certification. Changing size standards alters access to SBA's programs that assist small businesses, but does not impose a regulatory burden because they neither regulate nor control business behavior.
Under section 3(a)(2)(C) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632(3)(a)(2)(C), Federal agencies must use SBA's size standards to define a small business, unless specifically authorized by statute to do otherwise. In 1995, SBA published in the
However, the Small Business Act and SBA's regulations allow Federal agencies to develop different size standards if they believe that SBA's size standards are not appropriate for their programs, with the approval of SBA's Administrator (13 CFR 121.903). The SBA's regulations (13 CFR 121.903(c)) authorize an agency to establish an alternative small business definition for the sole purpose of performing a regulatory flexibility analysis pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601(3)), after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration.
By law, SBA is required to develop numerical size standards for establishing eligibility for Federal small business assistance programs. Other than varying size standards by industry and changing the size measures, no practical alternative exists to the systems of numerical size standards.
SBA's only other consideration was whether to adopt the size standards presented in the interim final rule with no further increase for the inflation. However, SBA believes that the inflation that has occurred since the publication of the June 12, 2014 interim final rule is not sufficient to warrant an additional increase at this time.
Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement, Government property, Grant programs—business, Individuals with disabilities, Loan programs—business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is correcting a final rule that published in the
Jenny Scott, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-300), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2166.
In the
In FR Doc. 2015-21920, appearing on page 55908 in the
1. On page 55908, in the first column, the headings section of the document, under the line containing “[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0920],” is corrected by adding “RIN 0910-AG36”.
2. On page 55938, in the second column, in the first paragraph under “VII. Comments on Proposed General Revisions to Current Part 110 (Final Part 117),” “revising provisions directed to preventing contamination of food and food-contact substances” is corrected to read “revising provisions directed to preventing contamination of food and food-contact surfaces.”
Except as provided by § 117.5(k)(1), subpart B of this part applies to the off-farm packaging, packing, and holding of raw agricultural commodities. Compliance with this requirement for raw agricultural commodities that are produce as defined in part 112 of this chapter may be achieved by complying with subpart B of this part or with the applicable requirements for packing and holding in part 112 of this chapter.”
“(c) When a supply-chain-applied control is applied by an entity other than the receiving facility's supplier (
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Final rule.
This document finalizes the Drug Enforcement Administration's rule implementing the requirements of the Combat Methamphetamine Enhancement Act of 2010 establishing self-certification and training requirements for mail-order distributors of scheduled listed chemical products. This action finalizes without change the interim final rule with request for comment published on April 13, 2011.
This rule takes effect January 25, 2016.
Barbara J. Boockholdt, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22512; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. 21 U.S.C. 801-971. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, but they are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for the purposes of this action. The DEA publishes the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), parts 1300 to 1321. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while providing for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States.
The CSA grants the Attorney General authority to promulgate rules and regulations relating to the registration and control of the manufacture, distribution, and dispensing of controlled substances and listed chemicals, 21 U.S.C. 821, and the efficient execution of his statutory functions. 21 U.S.C. 871(b). The Attorney General has delegated this authority to the Administrator of the DEA, 28 CFR 0.100(b), who in turn has redelegated certain authorities to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”), 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
By this document, the DEA finalizes the interim final rule, “Self-Certification and Employee Training of Mail-Order Distributors of Scheduled Listed Chemical Products” published on April 13, 2011, at 76 FR 20518. This rule became effective on April 13, 2011. The interim final rule solicited public comments for which the comment period closed on June 13, 2011. No comments were received in response to the publication. No changes are being made to the rule.
The preamble to the interim final rule explained that section 2 of the Combat Methamphetamine Enhancement Act of 2010 (MEA) (Pub. L. 111-268, 124 Stat. 2847) amended 21 U.S.C. 830(e)(2) to establish new requirements for mail-order distributors to self-certify with the DEA in order to sell scheduled listed chemical products at retail. Sales “at retail” are those intended for personal use. 21 U.S.C. 802(48); 21 CFR 1300.02(b). As Congress directed in the MEA, the DEA has established through this rule criteria for certifications of mail-order distributors consistent with the criteria previously established for certifications of other regulated sellers.
The MEA is the most recent in a series of legislative actions aimed at preventing illicit drug manufacturers' access to methamphetamine precursor chemicals and enhancing penalties for methamphetamine production and trafficking. Methamphetamine is a highly addictive stimulant drug in schedule II of the CSA. As recognized through the acts of Congress, the clandestine manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine have been and continue to be serious national public health problems.
The MEA refers to “mail-order distributors” but does not define the term. As stated in the interim final rule, the idea of mail-order distributor is developed in 21 CFR part 1314, which discusses regulated persons who make a sale at retail of a scheduled listed chemical product and are required under § 1310.03(c) to submit a report of the sales transaction to the Administration. 21 CFR 1314.100(a). The CSA and its implementing regulations impose recordkeeping and reporting requirements on regulated persons who engage in transactions with a nonregulated person or who engage in an export transaction involving ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, phenylpropanolamine, or gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, including drug products containing these chemicals, and who use or attempt to use the Postal Service or any private or commercial carrier. 21 CFR 1310.03(c). Of those subject to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements, only those distributors who engage in mail-order sales at retail of scheduled listed chemical products are subject to the training and self-certification requirements. 21 CFR 1314.101 and 1314.102. A “mail-order sale,” for purposes of part 1314, is defined by DEA regulations as a retail sale of scheduled listed chemical products for personal use where a regulated person uses or attempts to use the U.S. Postal Service or any private or commercial carrier to deliver the product to the customer. 21 CFR 1314.03. Mail-order sales include purchase orders submitted by phone, mail, fax, Internet, or any method other than a face-to-face transaction.
The DEA is taking this opportunity in publishing this final rule to provide in this supplementary information a clearer discussion of the development of
The CMCA established monthly reporting requirements applicable to regulated persons who engage in transactions with nonregulated persons involving ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine (including drug products containing these chemicals) and use or attempt to use the Postal Service or any private or commercial carrier. 21 U.S.C. 830(b)(3)(B). The DEA implemented the monthly reporting requirement at 21 CFR 1310.03(c). The MAPA amended 21 U.S.C. 830(b)(3)(B) to require regulated persons also to report mail-order export transactions involving ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine.
The MAPA also established exemptions from the mail-order reporting requirements, including an exemption relating to non-“face-to-face” transactions. 21 U.S.C. 830(b)(3)(D)(ii). That exemption stipulates that retail distributors generally are not required to report non-face-to-face sales of U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved (FDA-approved) drug products containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine to ultimate users if the seller's activities related to those products are almost exclusively confined to sales for personal use, both in terms of number and volume of sales.
Certain additional requirements apply to mail-order distributors. For instance, under the CMEA, mail-order distributors making retail sales of scheduled listed chemical products must confirm the purchaser's identity and may not sell more than 7.5 grams of ephedrine base, pseudoephedrine base, or phenylpropanolamine base in scheduled listed chemical products per customer during a 30-day period. 21 U.S.C. 830(e)(2)(A)-(B). Most recently, the MEA added the requirement that mail-order distributors self-certify in order to sell scheduled listed chemical products at retail, and makes it unlawful for any person to negligently fail to self-certify as required under section 830. 21 U.S.C. 830(e)(2)(C) and 842(a)(10).
Section 2 of the MEA, codified at 21 U.S.C. 830(e)(2)(c), requires the Attorney General to establish by regulation “criteria for certifications of mail-order distributors that are consistent with the criteria established for the certifications of regulated sellers” under the CMEA. The CMEA specifies that a separate certification is required for each place of business at which scheduled listed chemical products are sold at retail. 21 U.S.C. 830(e)(1)(B)(ii)(II); 21 CFR 1314.40(c). The DEA analyzed the plain language and purpose of the statute to interpret the meaning of “each place of business” where retail sales are made.
This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation. It has been determined that this is not “a significant regulatory action.” As discussed above, and in the interim final rule, this action is codifying statutory provisions and involves no agency discretion as to regulatory alternatives. As analyzed in the interim final rule at 76 FR 20158, the DEA has determined that the MEA's requirements will not impose an annual cost on the economy of $100 million or more, the standard for an economically significant rule under Executive Order 12866. The DEA received no public comments with respect to the interim final rule.
To address the new mandates of the MEA, the DEA has revised its existing information collection “Self-Certification, Training and Logbooks for Regulated Sellers and Mail-Order Distributors of Scheduled Listed Chemical Products,” Information Collection 1117-0046. The MEA requires mail-order distributors to train any employee who will be involved in selling scheduled listed chemical products and to document the training. Mail-order distributors must also self-certify to the DEA that all affected employees have been trained and that the mail-order distributor is in compliance with all provisions of the CMEA. No comments were received by the DEA regarding the information collection.
The Deputy Assistant Administrator, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), has reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As noted in the interim final rule, the RFA applies to rules that are subject to notice and comment. The DEA determined, as explained in the interim final rule, that public notice and comment were impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Consequently, the RFA does not apply.
Although the RFA does not apply to this rulemaking, the DEA has reviewed the potential impacts in the interim final rule, in which the DEA certified that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on small entities. As published in the interim final rule, based on reports filed, DEA expects that the rule will affect only 9 firms, two of which are not small based on the Small Business Administration's size standards. For the seven small firms, the only costs are the $21 annual fee, the time required to complete the certification (0.5 hours or about $20 for a new self-certification application), and
The DEA received no public comments with respect to the interim final rule and the DEA has not received any other information that would materially change the impact of this rule on small entities. Therefore, the DEA concludes this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48). This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform.
This rulemaking has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and the DEA has determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This rulemaking does not impose enforcement responsibilities on any State; nor does it diminish the power of any State to enforce its own laws. The requirements of this rule are mandated under the MEA, and the DEA has no authority to alter them or change the preemption. Accordingly, this rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132.
The DEA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175 and this rule will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and will not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional Review Act). This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. It will not cause a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of the United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.
Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 21 CFR part 1314 which was published at 76 FR 20518 on April 13, 2011, is adopted as a final rule without change.
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.
Final rule.
This rule updates policy and outlines fiscal and logistical support the DoD may provide to qualified scouting organizations operating on U.S. military installations overseas based on Executive Order 12715, Support of Overseas Scouting Activities for Military Dependents, and pertinent statutes as discussed below. It is DoD policy to cooperate with and assist qualified scouting organizations in establishing and providing facilities and services, within available resources, at locations outside the United States to support DoD personnel and their families.
This rule is effective February 24, 2016.
Mr. Chris Wright, 703-588-0172.
The Department of Defense published a proposed rule on November 24, 2014 (79 FR 69777-69781), with a request for public comments. The 60-day public comment period ended on January 23, 2015. One public comment was received. This comment is addressed as follows:
This rule provides that support provided by DoD is documented in written agreements and signed by the appropriate regional combatant commander. Also, it would require installation-specific support and services to be based on a written agreement and signed by the installation commander or designee. These agreements will replace the need for these organizations to submit individual articles of incorporation, written constitutions, charters, or articles of agreement to gain approval from the installation commander to operate on the installation. In addition to Executive Order 12715, Title 10 of the United
Title 10, U.S.C., section 2606 provides that: The Secretary may collaborate with qualified scouting organizations in establishing and providing facilities and services for members of the armed forces and their dependents, and civilian employees of the Department of Defense and their dependents, at locations outside the United States. Qualified scouting organizations may be furnished support such as some transportation support, available office space, warehousing, utilities, supplies and a means of communication, without charge. The Secretary may reimburse a qualified scouting organization for all or part of the pay of an employee of that organization for any period during which the employee was performing services, however any such reimbursement may not be made from appropriated funds. Employees of a qualified scouting organization will not be considered to be employees of the United States, and the term “qualified scouting organization” means the Girl Scouts of the United States of America and the Boy Scouts of America.
Title 10, U.S.C., section 2554 provides that: The Secretary of Defense is authorized to lend to the Boy Scouts of America without reimbursement, for the use and accommodation of Scouts, Scouters, and officials who attend any national or world Boy Scout Jamboree, items such as cots, blankets, commissary equipment, flags, refrigerators, and other equipment. Additionally, expendable medical supplies and services, as may be necessary or useful to the extent that items are in stock and items or services are available, can be provided at no expense to the United States Government for the delivery, return, rehabilitation, or replacement of such items. Before delivering such property, the Secretary of Defense will take good and sufficient bond for the safe return of such property in good order and condition, and the whole without expense to the United States. The Secretary of Defense is also authorized to provide, without expense to the United States Government, transportation from the United States or military commands overseas, and return, on vessels of the Military Sealift Command or aircraft of the Air Mobility Command for Boy Scouts, Scouters, and officials certified by the Boy Scouts of America, as representing the Boy Scouts of America at any national or world Boy Scout Jamboree to the extent that such transportation will not interfere with the requirements of military operations. The Secretary of Defense shall take from the Boy Scouts of America, a good and sufficient bond for the reimbursement to the United States, of the actual costs of transportation. If a Boy Scout Jamboree is held on a military installation, the Secretary of Defense may provide personnel services and logistical support at the military installation in addition to the support previously stated. Other departments of the Federal Government are authorized, under such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary thereof, to provide to the Boy Scouts of America equipment and other services under the same conditions and restrictions prescribed in the preceding subsections for the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense shall provide at least the same level of support for a national or world Boy Scout Jamboree as was provided for the preceding national or world Boy Scout Jamboree. The Secretary of Defense may waive all support if it determines that providing the support would be detrimental to the national security of the United States.
Title 10, U.S.C., section 2555 provides: The Secretary of Defense is authorized to provide, without expense to the United States Government, transportation from the United States or military commands overseas, and return, on vessels of the Military Sealift Command or aircraft of the Air Mobility Command for Girl Scouts and officials certified by the Girl Scouts of the United States of America at any International World Friendship Event or Troops on Foreign Soil meeting which is endorsed and approved by the National Board of Directors of the Girl Scouts of the United States of America and is conducted outside of the United States. Support is also authorized for United States citizen delegates coming from outside of the United States to triennial meetings of the National Council of the Girl Scouts of the United States of America, and for the equipment and property of Girl Scouts and officials, to the extent that such transportation will not interfere with the requirements of military operations. Before furnishing any transportation, the Secretary of Defense shall take from the Girl Scouts of the United States of America a good and sufficient bond for the reimbursement to the United States by the Girl Scouts of the United States of America, of the actual costs of transportation furnished. Amounts paid to the United States to reimburse it for the actual costs of transportation furnished will be credited to the current applicable appropriations or funds to which such costs were charged and shall be available for the same purposes as such appropriations or funds.
Executive Order 12715, May 3, 1990, 55 FR 19051, discusses the cooperation and assistance authorized by section 2606(a) of title 10, and requires the Secretary of Defense to issue regulations concerning support.
This rule discusses the types of support DoD installation commanders are authorized to provide, ensures appropriated fund (APF) and non-appropriated fund (NAF) assets are used correctly, and requires the cost of the support provided to be shared by each of the Military Services in proportion to benefits derived by their members from overseas scouting programs.
Program costs are less than $700,000 per year, consisting primarily of salaries, transportation costs, and supplies to support scouting programs that directly complement and improve quality of life programming for military families overseas.
This rule is part of DoD's retrospective plan, completed in August 2011, under Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” DoD's full plan and updates can be accessed at:
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distribute impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a nonsignificant regulatory action and not economically significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. The rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
This rule will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This rule does not impose reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DoD has determined this final rule would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. It does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Military installations, Military personnel, Scout organizations.
Accordingly 32 CFR part 252 is added to read as follows:
E.O. 12715, May 3, 1990, 55 FR 19051; 10 U.S.C. 2606, 2554, and 2555.
This part updates policy and outlines fiscal and logistical support that the DoD may provide to qualified scouting organizations operating on U.S. military installations overseas.
This part applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the combatant commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the DoD (referred to collectively in this part as “the DoD Components”).
These terms and their definitions are for the purposes of this part.
It is DoD policy to cooperate with and assist qualified scouting organizations in establishing and providing facilities and services, within available resources, at locations outside the United States to support DoD personnel and their families in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2606, 2554, and 2555 and Executive Order 12715, “Support of Overseas Scouting Activities for Military Dependents”.
(a) The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)) oversees development and implementation of this part.
(b) The DoD Component heads implement this part and comply with its provisions.
(c) In addition to the responsibilities in paragraph (b) of this section and acting as the DoD Executive Agent for DoD support to the BSA and GSUSA local councils and organizations in areas outside of the United States in accordance with 32 CFR part 212, the Secretary of the Army:
(1) Makes policy determinations in coordination with the other Military Department Secretaries regarding topics including, but not limited to, support that:
(i) DoD installation commanders are authorized to provide to the scouting program and personnel.
(ii) The scouting organization provides to DoD.
(2) Ensures accountability for appropriated fund (APF) and non-appropriated fund (NAF) assets used in the support of qualified scouting organizations.
(3) Provides input for and works with the scouting organizations in establishing the extent and scope of the annual scouting programs in support of DoD personnel and their families within the parameters established in this part and available resources.
(4) Ensures that the cost of the support provided is shared by each of the Military Services in proportion to benefits derived by their members from scouting programs overseas.
(a)
(2) Overseas installation commanders may authorize DoD support for qualified scouting organizations outside the United States when:
(i) Support is permitted under international agreements with the host nation, if applicable.
(ii) Support is permitted pursuant to law and DoD issuances.
(iii) Such support is within the capabilities of their respective installations.
(iv) Providing such support will not impede fulfillment of the military mission.
(3) Committees composed of representatives of the Military Services will be formed to review annual qualified scouting organization budget requirements.
(4) Overseas scouting committees will provide the overseas scouting organizations with information on the scouting requirements of DoD personnel and will monitor and evaluate the scouting organizations' efforts to satisfy those requirements.
(5) Funds raised by the scouting organizations, as a non-Federal entity, cannot be commingled with NAF funds and will be made available for annual audits.
(6) Employees of a qualified scouting organization are not considered to be U.S. Government employees, or
(i) APF and NAFs are not used to reimburse their salaries and benefits.
(ii) They are not entitled to participate in the NAF retirement fund.
(iii) Serving in those positions does not constitute NAF employment credit or produce rehire priority.
(7) These organizations generally are not covered under the terms of United States' Status of Forces or other relevant agreements with host nations.
(i) Questions regarding whether they are covered under such agreements should be referred to the legal office servicing the applicable command. Applicability of any relevant agreements would be addressed with the host nation only by the applicable command, and not the organization.
(ii) To the extent the organization is not covered under any relevant agreement, host nation laws apply. In all cases, the host nation will determine the scope and extent of the applicability of host nation laws to these employees.
(b)
(2) APF may be used in conjunction with overseas scouting organizations. The following services may be provided on a non-reimbursable basis:
(i) Transportation of executive personnel (to include household goods and baggage) of qualified scouting organizations:
(A) When on invitational travel orders.
(B) To and from overseas assignments.
(C) While providing scouting support to DoD personnel and their families. Transportation of supplies of qualified scouting organizations necessary to provide such support may also be provided.
(ii) Office space where regular meetings can be conducted, and space for recreational activities.
(iii) Warehousing.
(iv) Utilities.
(v) Means of communication.
(3) DoD may provide the following additional support to scouting executives assigned overseas:
(i) Pursuant to section API 3.18 of DoD 4525.6-M, “Department of Defense Postal Manual” (available at
(ii) Pursuant to section 4.3.2.2.2 of Department of Defense Education Activity Regulation 1342.13, “Eligibility Requirements for Education of Elementary and Secondary School-age Dependents in Overseas Areas” (available at
(iii) Pursuant to 32 CFR part 230, use of military banking facilities operated under DoD contracts is authorized.
(iv) Pursuant to DoD Instruction 1015.10, “Military Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) Programs” (available at
(v) Pursuant to 32 CFR part 161, medical care in uniformed services facilities on a space-available basis at rates specified in uniformed services instructions, with charges collected locally, is authorized.
(vi) Pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular A-45, “Rental and Construction of Government Quarters” (available at
(vii) Pursuant to DoD Instruction 1330.17, “DoD Commissary Program” (available at
(viii) Pursuant to DoD Instruction 1330.21, “Armed Services Exchange Regulations” (available at
(4) NAF may be used in conjunction with qualified scouting organizations to:
(i) Reimburse for salaries and benefits of employees of those organizations for periods during which their professional scouting employees perform services in overseas areas in direct support of DoD personnel and their families.
(ii) Reimburse travel to and from official meetings of the overseas scouting committee upon approval from the appropriate combatant commander.
(5) The total amount of NAF support for the scouting program must not exceed 70 percent of the total cost of the scouting program.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the Hanohano Ocean Challenge special local regulations on Saturday, January 23, 2016. This event occurs in Mission Bay in San Diego, CA. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor safety vessels, and general users of the waterway. During the enforcement period, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 will be enforced for the location listed in item 16 in Table 1 to 33 CFR 100.1101 from 6 a.m. until 2 p.m. on January 23, 2016.
If you have questions on this notice of
The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 in support of the Hanohano Ocean Challenge (Item 16 on Table 1 of 33 CFR 100.1101) in Mission Bay in San Diego, CA from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Saturday, January 23, 2016.
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1101, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area, but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in patrol and notification of this regulation.
This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.1101 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this document in the
If the Captain of the Port Sector San Diego or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Colorado on March 31, 2010, May 16, 2012 and May 13, 2013. The revisions are to Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (Commission) Regulation Number 3, Parts A, B and D and Common Provisions Regulation. The revisions include administrative changes to permitting requirements for stationary sources, updates to the fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM
This rule is effective on February 24, 2016.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0493. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6252,
In our notice of proposed rulemaking published on September 14, 2015 (80 FR 55055), EPA proposed to either approve or take no action on revisions to Common Provisions Regulation and Regulation Number 3, Parts A, B and D submitted by the State of Colorado on March 31, 2010, May 16, 2012 and May 13, 2013. In this rulemaking, we are taking final action on revisions to Common Provisions Regulation which include adding compounds to the definition of “negligibly reactive volatile compounds” (NRVOC), clarifying NRVOC and volatile organic compound (VOC) testing methodologies within the definition of “volatile organic compound,” and revising the definition of “incinerator” along with minor editorial changes. We are also taking final action on revisions to Regulation Number 3, Parts A, B and D which include revisions to State permitting requirements for stationary sources to incorporate changes to the federal NSR Program related to PM
In this action, EPA is also taking final action to correct a final rule published in the
We received one comment on our proposed rule.
For the reasons expressed in the proposed rule, EPA is approving revisions to sections I.A., I.B., I.C., I.D., I.E., I.F., I.G., II.B., II.C., II.E.2. and II.H of the State's Common Provisions Regulation from the March 31, 2010 submittal as shown in Table 1 below. We are also approving revisions to Parts A, B and D of the State's Regulation Number 3 from the May 16, 2012 and May 13, 2013 submittals (Table 1), except for those revisions we are not taking action on as represented in Table 2 below. Finally, EPA is correcting regulatory text and IBR published in the
A comprehensive summary of the revisions in Colorado's Common Provisions Regulation and Regulation Number 3 Parts A, B and D organized by EPA's action, reason for “no action” and submittal date are provided in Table 1 and Table 2 below.
In this rule, the EPA is including regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is incorporating by reference Colorado Air Quality Control Commission regulations discussed in section III,
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this final action merely approves some state law as meeting federal requirements; this final action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this final action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and,
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
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 March 25, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Greenhouse gases, 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 to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission, via the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB or Bureau) temporarily extends an exemption for smaller broadband Internet access service providers from compliance with certain enhancements to the exiting transparency rule that governs the content and format of disclosures made by providers. The exemption is available to providers with 100,000 or fewer broadband connections as per the provider's most recent Form 477,
Effective February 24, 2016.
Jerusha Burnett, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0526.
This is a summary of the Commission's Document DA 15-1425, released December 15, 2015 in GN Docket No. 14-28, temporarily extending the exemption for smaller providers from enhanced transparency requirements established in the
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
The Commission currently has an Office and Management and Budget (OMB) collection 3060-1158 pending OMB's review and approval of a revision containing modified information collection requirements adopted in the Commission's
1. In document DA 15-1425, CGB finds that at this time it cannot fully evaluate the impact of removing the temporary exemption for smaller broadband Internet access service providers from the enhancements to the Open Internet transparency rule previously adopted by the Commission in the
2. In the
3. The Commission temporarily exempted from the enhanced transparency requirements those providers with 100,000 or fewer broadband subscribers, as per their most recent Form 477, aggregated over all of the providers' affiliates. At the same time, the Commission directed CGB to seek comment on both the appropriateness of the exemption as well as the threshold, and to adopt an order announcing whether it is maintaining an exemption and at what level by no later than December 15, 2015.
4. On June 22, 2015, the Bureau released a Public Notice, published at 80 FR 38424, July 15, 2015, seeking comment on whether to maintain the temporary exemption and, if so, the appropriate threshold for whether a provider qualified for such an exemption. The Public Notice also clarified that the threshold should be measured in terms of broadband connections, rather than in terms of subscribers or subscriber lines. For this reason, the Public Notice made clear that the current exemption from the enhanced transparency requirements applied to providers with 100,000 or fewer broadband connections.
5. CGB hereby extends the temporary exemption for smaller providers from the enhanced transparency requirements until December 15, 2016. At that time, the Bureau expects that the PRA process will be complete and that the full Commission will be able to consider whether and, if so, how best to address the exemption from the enhanced transparency requirements for small providers with the benefit of more complete information.
6. The Bureau cannot agree with those commenters that claim that the enhanced transparency requirements offer no tangible benefit to customers of smaller providers. As the Commission stated in the
7. In determining whether and, if so, how to best to address the exemption, the Bureau must balance the benefit of the transparency rule enhancements to consumers against the impact on small providers of removing the exemption. Until the PRA process is complete, however, the Bureau finds that we cannot fully evaluate this impact. Despite the Commission's finding that the enhancements adopted in the
8. The
9. The Commission set the exemption threshold at 100,000 or fewer broadband connections as per providers' most recent Form 477, aggregated over all of the providers' affiliates. The Bureau agrees with those commenters who support the use of this threshold. As the Commission noted, this threshold is analogous to that which was used in the
10. In the Public Notice, the Bureau sought comment on whether smaller providers that fail to file a Form 477 should be ineligible for the exemption. One commenter notes that not all providers are required to submit Form 477 and suggests that these providers be allowed to offer an alternative reporting mechanism to avail themselves of the exemption. The Bureau agrees, in this limited circumstance, that providers that are not required to file a Form 477 can avail themselves of the exemption by demonstrating that they served 100,000 or fewer broadband connections aggregated over all the providers' affiliates at the relevant time should any complaint arise. In all other instances, however, the exemption will be tied to the information provided on Form 477. In the
The Commission will not send a copy of DA 15-1425 pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, because the Commission adopted no rules therein.
Pursuant to sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), (j), and § 8.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 8.3, and the authority delegated in §§ 0.141 and 0.361 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.141, 0.361, and in
Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Proposed rule.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) is proposing to revise existing regulations and add new regulations under the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA), as amended, in order to comply with amendments to the USGSA made by the Agriculture Reauthorizations Act of 2015. Specifically, this rulemaking proposes to eliminate mandatory barge weighing, remove the discretion for emergency waivers of inspection and weighing, revise GIPSA's fee structure, revise exceptions to official agency geographic boundaries, extend the length of licenses and designations, and impose new requirements for delegated States.
Comments must be received on or before February 24, 2016.
We invite you to submit comments on this rule. In your comments, please include the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) and the volume, date, and page number of this issue of the
•
• Mail, hand deliver, or courier to Dexter Thomas, GIPSA, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 2526-S, Washington, DC 20250-3642.
Comments will be available online at
Barry Gomoll, 202-720-8286.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact the USDA Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
On September 30, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Agriculture Reauthorizations Act of 2015, Public Law 114-54, (The Reauthorization Act). In addition to extending certain provisions of the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 71-87k) to 2020, the Reauthorization Act also made several changes to the existing law. Therefore, this proposed rule would amend 7 CFR part 800 to comply with the amendments made by the Reauthorization Act. Specifically, this proposed rule would:
• Remove the requirement to officially weigh inbound barge shipments at export port locations (§§ 800.15 and 800.216);
• require GIPSA to approve all requests for waivers of official inspection and weighing requirements for export grain in “emergencies or other circumstances which would not impair the objectives of the [USGSA]” (§ 800.18);
• base the portion of fees assessed on tonnage on the 5-year rolling average of export tonnage volume (§ 800.71);
• adjust fees annually to maintain a 3 to 6 month operating reserve for inspection and supervision services (§ 800.71);
• remove the provision that allows applicants to request service from an official agency outside an assigned geographic region after 90 days of nonuse of service (§ 800.117);
• waive the geographic boundaries established for official agencies between two adjacent official agencies if both official agencies agree in writing to the waiver. (§ 800.117);
• without changing current termination dates, terminate inspection licenses every 5 years instead of every 3 years (§ 800.175);
• require delegated States to notify GIPSA of any intent to temporarily discontinue official inspection or weighing services at least 72 hours in advance, except in the case of a major disaster (§ 800.195);
• require delegated States to submit to a GIPSA review of their delegation by every 5 years in order to certify that they comply with the requirements for delegation under the USGSA (§ 800.195);
• require designated official agencies to respond to concerns identified during GIPSA's consultations with customers as part of the renewal of a designation (§ 800.196); and
• extend the minimum length of designation for official agencies from 3 years to 5 years (§ 800.196).
GIPSA last made changes to its fee schedule on May 1, 2013 (78 FR 22151-66). At that time, GIPSA determined that the existing fee schedule for inspection and weighing services would not generate enough revenue to adequately cover program costs through fiscal year 2017. To correct this problem and to build an operating reserve, GIPSA increased fees by 5 percent in fiscal year 2013 and an additional 2 percent for each successive year through fiscal year 2017.
In addition, GIPSA restructured its tonnage fees to more accurately reflect the administrative and supervisory costs at the national and local level. In order to establish an equitable tonnage fee for all export tonnage utilizing the official system, GIPSA began assessing the national tonnage fee for all export grain inspected and/or weighed (excluding land carrier shipments to Canada and Mexico) by delegated States and designated agencies. GIPSA also shifted workers compensation costs from the national to the local level to fully reflect where those workers compensation costs originated.
Before the Reauthorization Act, GIPSA used projected future tonnage volumes as a basis for tonnage fees. However, the Reauthorization Act amended the USGSA to require that tonnage fees be based on the five-year rolling average of export tonnage volumes. In order to comply with this new tonnage fee requirement, under this proposed rule, GIPSA would adjust both the national and local tonnage fees on a yearly basis. Under this proposed rule,
The Reauthorization Act further requires adjustment of all of GIPSA's fees for the performance, supervision, and administration of official inspection and weighing services at least annually to maintain a 3 to 6 month operating reserve. Given that the number of requests for official inspection and weighing services varies with the amount of grain produced and exported, an operating reserve allows funding of operations in periods with lower than usual revenue. In order to maintain an operating reserve, this proposed rule would increase or decrease inspection and weighing fees when the operating reserve is less than 3 times or more than 6 times monthly operating expenses. For every $1 million that the operating reserve is below 3 months or above 6 months of operating expenses, GIPSA would increase or decrease fees by 2 percent respectively. This proposed rule would also set a 5 percent limit on changes to fees for service per calendar year. GIPSA's annual user fee revenue for performance, supervision, and administration of official inspection and weighing is approximately $40 million. Therefore, an increase or decrease of 2 to 5 percent would approximately equal between $0.8 and $2 million annually.
In addition to annual reviews of fees, GIPSA would continue to evaluate the financial status of the official inspection and weighing services to ensure that the revenue for each service covers the cost to GIPSA of providing that service. Also, GIPSA would continue to seek out cost saving measures and implement appropriate changes to reduce costs and minimize the need for fee increases.
This action is authorized under the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 79(j)), which provides for the establishment and collection of fees that are reasonable and, as nearly as practicable, cover the costs of the services rendered, including associated administrative and supervisory costs. The tonnage fees cover the GIPSA administrative and supervisory costs for the performance of GIPSA's official inspection and weighing services; including personnel compensation and benefits, travel, rent, communications, utilities, contractual services, supplies, and equipment.
The Reauthorization Act requires changes to GIPSA's exception program for official agencies to operate outside of their geographically assigned areas. Before the Reauthorization Act, the regulations provided for three types of exceptions: Timely service, nonuse of service for 90 consecutive days, and barge probe inspections. The Reauthorization Act amended the USGSA to eliminate the nonuse of service exception and add a provision for geographically adjacent agencies to provide service in each other's assigned geographic territories if they both agree in writing at the request of an applicant. This proposed rule would revise the current regulations to comply with the changes to the USGSA by the Reauthorization Act.
GIPSA currently has 104 agreements for agencies operating outside of their assigned territory and GIPSA would continue to honor those agreements. Under this proposed rule, an agency would be permitted to provide service at a location in another adjacent agency's territory, provided that both agencies and the applicant for service submit an agreement in writing to GIPSA.
As required by the Reauthorization Act, this proposed rule would impose new requirements on State agencies that GIPSA delegates to perform export inspection and weighing services at export port locations under the USGSA. The Reauthorization Act requires the Secretary to certify that State agencies are meeting statutory requirements. Accordingly, every 5 years, a delegated State agency must submit to a review as to whether it meets the criteria for delegation set forth in the USGSA. This proposed rule would implement a process mirroring the existing process that GIPSA uses to renew the designations of official agencies. The Reauthorization Act also requires that a delegated State must notify GIPSA in writing of any intent to discontinue providing official service at least 72 hours before any discontinuation. This proposed rule would add this requirement to the section of the regulations concerning responsibilities of delegated States (7 CFR 800.195(f)).
The Reauthorization Act amended the USGSA to require GIPSA to waive the mandatory official inspection and weighing of export grain “in emergency or other circumstances that would not impair the objectives of this Act whenever the parties to a contract for such shipment mutually agree to the waiver and documentation of such agreement is provided to the Secretary prior to shipment.” To clarify what constitutes an emergency regarding this provision, this proposed rule would define the term “emergency” in the regulations.
The final product of all official inspection and weighing services is the official certificate. This certificate is used to represent the grain shipment in trade and may be presented as
The Office of Management and Budget has designated this proposed rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulation Review.” Since grain export volume can vary significantly from year to year, estimating the impact in any future fee changes can be difficult. GIPSA recognizes the need to provide predictability to the industry for inspection and weighing fees. While not required by the Reauthorization Act, this proposed rule would limit the impact of a large annual change in fees by setting an annual cap of 5 percent for increases or decreases in inspection and weighing fees. The statutory requirement to maintain an operating reserve between 3 and 6 months of operating expenses ensures that GIPSA can adequately cover its costs without imposing an undue burden on its customers.
Currently, GIPSA regularly reviews its user-fee financed programs to determine if the fees charged for performing official inspection and weighing services adequately cover the cost of providing those services. This policy remains unchanged in this proposed regulation. GIPSA will continue to seek
This proposed rule is unlikely to have an annual effect of $100 million or adversely affect the economy. The changes to the regulation in this proposed rule are a direct response to Congressional action. Also, under the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-12), GIPSA has considered the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions. This ensures that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. GIPSA is proposing this rule solely because the Reauthorization Act amended the USGSA, which requires that the regulations be updated to reflect the changes made to the USGSA by the Reauthorization Act.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines small businesses by their North American Industry Classification System Codes (NAICS). This proposed rule would affect customers of GIPSA's official inspection and weighing services in the domestic and export grain markets (NAICS code 115114). Fees for that program are in Schedules A (Tables 1-3) and B of § 800.71 of GIPSA's regulations (7 CFR 800.71).
Under the USGSA, all grain exported from the United States must be officially inspected and weighed. GIPSA provides mandatory inspection and weighing services at 45 export facilities in the United States and 7 facilities for U.S. grain transshipped through Canadian ports. Five delegated State agencies provide mandatory inspection and weighing services at 13 facilities. All of these facilities are owned by multi-national corporations, large cooperatives, or public entities that do not meet the requirements for small entities established by the SBA. Further, the provisions of this proposed rule would apply equally to all entities. The USGSA requires the registration of all persons engaged in the business of buying grain for sale in foreign commerce. In addition, those persons who handle, weigh, or transport grain for sale in foreign commerce must also register. The regulations found at 7 CFR 800.30 define a foreign commerce grain business as persons who regularly engage in buying for sale, handling, weighing, or transporting grain totaling 15,000 metric tons or more during the preceding or current calendar year. Currently, there are 108 registrants registered to export grain, most of which are not small businesses.
Most users of the official inspection and weighing services do not meet the SBA requirements for small entities. Further, GIPSA is required by statute to make services available to all applicants and to recover the costs of providing such services as nearly as practicable, while maintaining a 3 to 6 month operating reserve. There would be no additional reporting, record keeping, or other compliance requirements imposed upon small entities as a result of this proposed rule. GIPSA has not identified any other federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule. Because this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not provided.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” This proposed rule would not preempt State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they represent an irreconcilable conflict with this proposed rule. This proposed rule would not have retroactive effect.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” The policies in this proposed rule would not have any substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government, except as required by law. This proposed rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Because States already retain records for their ordinary operations, the proposed § 800.195(g)(4) should not have a significant impact on State governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” To our knowledge, this rule would not have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, GIPSA will work with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions, and modifications identified in this rule are not expressly mandated by the Reauthorization Act.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection and record keeping requirements included in this proposed rule has been approved by the OMB under control number 0580-0013, which expires on January 31, 2018.
GIPSA is committed to complying with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to maximum extent possible.
GIPSA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Grains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, GIPSA proposes to amend 7 CFR part 800 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 71-87k.
(b) * * *
(b) * * *
(7)
(A) That an emergency exists that precludes official inspection or Class X weighing;
(B) That granting an emergency waiver will not impair the objectives of the Act; and
(C) The buyer and seller mutually agree to the waiver.
(ii) To qualify for an emergency waiver, the exporter or elevator operator must submit a timely written request to the Service for the emergency waiver and also comply with all conditions that the Service may require.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(c)
(d)
(A) If you operate a business that buys, handles, weighs, or transports grain for sale in foreign commerce, you must pay $135.00.
(B) If you operate a business that buys, handles, weighs, or transports grain for sale in foreign commerce and you are also in a control relationship (see definition in section 17A(b)(2) of the Act) with respect to a business that buys, handles, weighs, or transports grain for sale in interstate commerce, you must pay $270.00.
(ii) If you request extra copies of registration certificates, you must pay $2.20 for each copy.
(2)
(3)
(b) * * *
(3)
(a)
(f) * * *
(11)
(g) * * *
(4)
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The applicant meets the conditions and criteria specified in the Act and regulations;
(iii) The applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide official services; and
(iv) The applicant addresses concerns identified during consultations that the Service conducts with applicants for service to the satisfaction of the Service.
(h)
(c)
(1) Shipping export grain without inspection or weighing;
(2) Violating any Federal law with respect to the handling, weighing, or inspection of grain;
(3) Deceptively loading, handling, weighing, or sampling grain; and
(4) Exporting grain without a certificate of registration.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is amending and updating its special local regulations relating to recurring marine parades, regattas, and other events that take place in the Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley area of responsibility (AOR). This document informs the public of regularly scheduled events that require additional safety measures through establishing a special local regulation. Through this document the current list of recurring special local regulations is updated with revisions, additional events, and removal of events that no longer take place in Sector Ohio Valley's AOR. When these special local regulations are enforced, certain restrictions are placed on marine traffic in specified areas. Additionally, this one proposed rulemaking project reduces administrative costs involved in producing separate proposed rules for each individual recurring special local regulation and serves to provide notice of the known recurring special local regulations throughout the year.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 25, 2016.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-1039 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Petty Officer James Robinson, Sector Ohio Valley, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (502) 779-5347, email
The Captain of the Port (COTP) Ohio Valley is proposing to establish, amend, and update its current list of recurring special local regulations.
These special local regulations are proposed to be added, amended, and updated to the list of annually recurring special local regulations under 33 CFR
The current list of annual and recurring special local regulations occurring in Sector Ohio Valley's AOR is published under 33 CFR 100.801. That most recent list was created August 19, 2015 through the rulemaking 80 FR 50196, which finalized the interim rule published April 22, 2014, 79 FR 22381, which received no adverse comments. The August 19, 2015 rulemaking established under 33 CFR 100.801 created the current comprehensive list of recurring safety zones.
The Coast Guard's authority for establishing a special local regulation is contained at 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Coast Guard is amending and updating the special local regulations under 33 CFR part 100 to include the most up to date list of recurring special local regulations for events held on or around navigable waters within Sector Ohio Valley's AOR. These events include marine parades, boat races, swim events, and other marine related events. The current list under 33 CFR 100.801 requires amending to provide new information on existing special local regulations, updating to include new special local regulations expected to recur annually or biannually, and to remove special local regulations that are no longer required. Issuing individual regulations for each new special local regulation, amendment, or removal of an existing special local regulation creates unnecessary administrative costs and burdens. This single proposed rulemaking will considerably reduce administrative overhead and provides the public with notice through publication in the
The Coast Guard encourages the public to participate in this proposed rulemaking through the comment process so that any necessary changes can be identified and implemented in a timely and efficient manner.
33 CFR part 100 contains regulations to provide effective control over regattas and marine parades conducted on U.S. navigable waters in order to ensure the safety of life in the regattas or marine parade area. Section 100.801 provides the regulations applicable to events taking place in the Eighth Coast Guard District and also provides a table listing each event and special local regulation. This section requires amendment from time to time to properly reflect the recurring special local regulations in Sector Ohio Valley's AOR. This proposed rule amends and updates § 100.801 replacing the current Table 1 for Sector Ohio Valley.
Additionally, this proposed rule adds 16 new recurring special local regulations and removes 8 special local regulations.
Sixteen new recurring special local regulations are added under the new Table 1 of § 100.801 for Sector Ohio Valley:
This proposed rule removes the following 8 special local regulations from the existing Table 1 of § 100.801:
The effect of this proposed rule will be to restrict general navigation during these events. Vessels intending to transit the designated waterway through the special local regulations will only be allowed to transit the area when the COTP Ohio Valley, or designated representative, has deemed it safe to do so or at the completion of the event.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. 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 has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposed rule to be minimal, and therefore a full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary. This proposed rule establishes special local regulations limiting access to certain areas under 33 CFR part 100 within Sector Ohio Valley's AOR. The effect of this proposed rulemaking will not be significant because these special local regulations are limited in scope and duration. Additionally, the public is given advance notification through local forms of notice, the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the special local regulation areas during periods of enforcement. The special local regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they are limited in scope and will be in effect for short periods of time. Before the enforcement period, the Coast Guard COTP will issue maritime advisories widely available to waterway users. Deviation from the special local regulations established through this proposed rulemaking may be requested from the appropriate COTP and requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against
This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h) of the Instruction because it involves establishment of special local regulations related to marine event permits for marine parades, regattas, and other marine events. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the U.S. Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing revisions to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. These proposed revisions align the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan with the Department of Homeland Security's National Response Framework and National Incident Management System. The revisions also update the descriptions of federal agency organizational structures and capabilities and how they operate, and recognize the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security.
Comments must be received on or before March 25, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2014-0050, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Jean Schumann, Office of Land and Emergency Management, Mail Code 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 564-1977,
The revisions primarily would affect the federal departments and agencies that participate in responding to incidents under the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which primarily consist of the departments and agencies on the NCP National Response Team (NRT). The descriptions and capabilities of these agencies have been updated, and some NCP terminology used by these agencies has been changed to be more consistent with the National Response Framework (NRF) and National Incident Management System (NIMS) issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Information has been added in notes to the regulation to explain that federal agencies follow the NRF and NIMS when appropriate.
Additionally, this rulemaking proposes a clarification to § 300.405(d) that affects persons who notify the National Response Center (NRC)
Impacts on potentially affected entities, direct and indirect, are summarized in section V of this preamble. A summary of potentially affected entities is provided in the table below.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Others types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding
The NCP is required by section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9605, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
The DHS issued the NRF and NIMS under the authority of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA), the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA), the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), and Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5,
Federal agencies are to follow the NRF and NIMS pursuant to those authorities. HSPD-5 also directed federal agencies to modify existing interagency plans to align with the National Response Plan, which was the predecessor to the NRF. EPA is proposing this rule to align the NCP with the NRF and NIMS.
Other changes are being proposed to the NCP to update descriptions of federal department and agency organizations and capabilities and how they operate, and to recognize the establishment of the DHS, which was authorized by the HSA.
This rulemaking proposes changes to the NCP in two general areas: (1) Changes that align the NCP with the NRF and NIMS; and (2) changes that update the descriptions and capabilities of the NRT federal agencies and how they operate, including the establishment of the DHS. EPA is not opening the NCP for comment on other types of changes, and the final rule will not address any comments received outside the scope of the proposed changes. Further, we are not taking comments on the substance of the NRF or the NIMS themselves, only on the changes made to the NCP to align with those documents.
EPA is not including any proposed changes to the NCP's “Appendix E to Part 300—Oil Spill Response” in this proposed rule. EPA proposed to remove appendix E from the NCP as part of a separate proposed rule on January 22, 2015 (80 FR 3380). If EPA decides not to remove appendix E from the NCP after considering the comments received on that January 22, 2015, rulemaking, EPA will engage in a rulemaking to revise appendix E in accordance with its final decisions on this rulemaking.
This section of the preamble explains the proposed revisions to the NCP by part and section number.
The proposed revisions would change the table of contents for part 300, subpart B, by changing the title of § 300.165 from “OSC reports” to “OSC after action reports.” (“OSC” is the abbreviation for On-Scene Coordinator.) This change would make the title of these reports more consistent with the terminology commonly used in incident management systems for such post-incidents reports. The change would support the objectives of the NRF and NIMS for more consistency in national incident management systems. This change in terminology would also be carried forth into the proposed revision to § 300.165, as explained in this preamble under subpart B, § 300.165.
We are proposing to update the “Authority” citation for 40 CFR part 300 by revising the scope of the CWA citation from “33 U.S.C. 1321(d)” to “33 U.S.C. 1321” to make it parallel with the scope of the existing CERCLA citation. The existing CERCLA citation refers to all of the CERCLA authorities underlying the NCP, not just the specific CERCLA provision that authorizes the issuance of the NCP. The existing CWA citation (33 U.S.C. 1321(d)), however, refers only to the specific CWA provision that authorizes the issuance of the NCP. This change would broaden the CWA citation to refer to all the CWA authorities that underlie the NCP, not just the specific CWA provision that authorizes the issuance of the NCP, by deleting “(d)” and referring only to “33 U.S.C. 1321.”
The existing § 300.2 states that amendments to the NCP are coordinated with members of the NRT prior to public notice and comment, and further explains that this includes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Nuclear Regulatory Commission in order to avoid inconsistent or duplicative requirements in the emergency planning responsibilities of these agencies. The specific reference to FEMA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was based on language from Executive Order 12580, January 23, 1987. Executive Order 12580 was amended by Executive Order 12777, October 18, 1991. Executive Order 12777 kept the reference to consultation with the NRT on NCP amendments, but deleted the specific reference to FEMA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The proposed revision to § 300.2 would therefore delete the sentence that refers to FEMA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to be consistent with Executive Order 12777. However, both FEMA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are members of the NRT, so EPA would continue to coordinate with both agencies on NCP amendments in their role as NRT members under the revised § 300.2.
The existing § 300.3(d) states that the NCP is in effect when the Federal Response Plan (FRP) is activated. The FRP is no longer in effect because it has been replaced by the NRF. The proposed changes would delete existing § 300.3(d), therefore, and add a note to § 300.3(a) that refers to the NRF instead of the Federal Response Plan. The note explains that the NRF was issued by DHS and is followed by federal departments and agencies. The NRF is a guide to how the Nation responds to domestic incidents under a variety of authorities at all levels, including response actions taken by federal, state, tribal, and local governments, communities, individuals, private sector organizations, and non-governmental organizations such as American Red Cross. The NRF addresses “all-hazards” incidents, such as natural disasters, terrorist attacks and other deliberate incidents, and accidents. The NCP
For some NCP responses, additional procedures under the NRF and supporting documents (
The abbreviations in paragraphs (a) and (b) would be updated to include new department and agency title and operational abbreviations used in this rule and to delete abbreviations that are no longer used in this rule or no longer apply. The following abbreviations would be deleted: RSPA, ESF, FCO, FRERP, FRP, and RRC. The following abbreviations would be added to paragraph (a): DHS and PHMSA. The following abbreviations would be added to paragraph (b): AMS, CBRN CMAT, CMHT, CMRT, FRMAC, JIC, NARAC, NCERT, NIMS, NRF, RAP, REAC/TS, REOC, and SERT. The existing abbreviation for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in paragraph (b) would be moved to paragraph (a). Since the USFWS is a distinct and significant component of the Department of the Interior (DOI), it is more appropriately listed in paragraph (a), which already includes some other distinct components of federal departments.
EPA is proposing to update the definitions section to include new definitions and delete definitions that no longer apply. New definitions would be added to § 300.5 for the terms “National Incident Management System” and “National Response Framework.” A note would be added to § 300.5 with new definitions for the terms “Emergency Support Function #10—Oil and Hazardous Materials Response Annex” and “Emergency Support Function #15—External Affairs Annex.” All of these definitions are derived from the NRF and NIMS, and readers are referred to the NRF and NIMS for additional information regarding these definitions. The NRF may be found at the DHS/FEMA Web site at
The following definitions would be deleted: “Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan” and “Federal Response Plan.” These two plans have been replaced by the NRF and supporting documents, including supporting annexes.
In addition, a minor change is being proposed to the definition of a “Spill of National Significance” (SONS) to clarify that, under the NCP, this type of incident is so classified by the EPA for discharges occurring in the inland zone or by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) for discharges occurring in the coastal zone, so readers do not confuse a SONS determination with any type of declaration or determination that may be made by other federal officials or federal departments or agencies under the NRF. This proposed change is discussed in more detail in this preamble under subpart D, § 300.323.
Finally, the existing definition of “national response system” would be modified to correct a capitalization error.
A note would be added to § 300.105(d) to reflect that NIMS is issued by DHS, and that federal agencies follow the NIMS and have adopted it for appropriate use in NCP emergency removal actions. The existing § 300.105(d) explains that the NCP response management structure is a system that brings together the functions of the federal government, state government, and responsible party(ies) to achieve an effective and efficient response, where the federal OSC retains his/her authority. The addition of the proposed note would provide further clarification that NIMS is the emergency preparedness and response management system adopted by federal departments and agencies for appropriate use in NCP emergency removal actions.
The Secretary of DHS required federal departments and agencies to submit their plans for adopting NIMS to DHS in December, 2004. Under HSPD-5, federal departments and agencies also were directed to make adoption of the NIMS a requirement, to the extent permitted by law, for providing federal preparedness assistance through grants, contracts, or other activities. HSPD-5 directed the Secretary of DHS to develop standards and guidelines for determining whether a state or local entity has adopted the NIMS. The DHS is responsible for developing standards and guidelines for determining whether federal, state, local, and tribal entities have adopted the NIMS.
The NIMS represents a core set of doctrines, concepts, principles, terminology, and organizational processes that enables effective, efficient, and collaborative incident management. It includes both preparedness and response components. Preparedness elements include establishing emergency operations plans and procedures; identifying response resources and establishing procedures for their use; training and credentialing response personnel; conducting exercises, evaluations, and corrective action programs; establishing and maintaining agreements for assistance; and planning for scientific support.
For managing the response to an incident, the NIMS uses the Incident Command System (ICS), which provides a flexible core mechanism for coordinated and collaborative incident management. The ICS integrates the facilities, equipment, personnel, procedures, and communications involved in a response within a common organizational structure. The ICS follows a number of key principles and concepts, including, but not limited to, the following:
• Field command and management functions are performed in accordance with a standard set of ICS organizations, doctrines, and procedures. Incident commanders, however, retain the flexibility to modify procedures or structures as needed to ensure a successful response to a specific incident.
• ICS is modular and scalable. It has a scalable organizational structure that is based on the size and complexity of the incident. Smaller incidents may be
• ICS establishes common terms, standards, and procedures that enable diverse organizations to work together more effectively. ICS includes a standard set of predesignated organizational elements and functions, common names for resources used to support incident operations, and common identifiers for facilities and operational locations used to support incident operations.
• ICS uses measurable objectives. Incidents are managed by establishing overarching objectives for the response and more specific measurable objectives for various response activities; directing efforts to obtain those objectives; and documenting the results of those efforts to measure performance and support corrective action. Incident objectives are communicated throughout the on-scene level command structure through the development of incident action plans.
Under NIMS, an Incident Command Post (ICP) is established at the on-scene tactical level. This is the location from which tactical response operations are directed. The ICP organization has five major functions: Command, operations, planning, logistics, and finance/administration (with a potential sixth function to cover intelligence/investigations, when needed). The ICP is led by the Incident Commander, the individual with the authority to direct the response. (For smaller incidents, the ICP may be as simple as the response vehicle from which the Incident Commander directs the on-scene response.)
Where multiple Incident Commanders have jurisdiction over the response, the incident is led by a Unified Command. Unified Command enables agencies and organizations with different legal, geographic, and functional responsibilities to coordinate, plan, and interact effectively. Under Unified Command, Incident Commanders work together to establish the common objectives and carry out tactical response activities, with each Incident Commander retaining his/her regulatory authority. The exact composition of the Unified Command structure depends on the location and type of incident. If only one agency has jurisdiction or regulatory authority, Unified Command may not be necessary. In that case, other assisting agencies and organizations can still provide input to incident objectives and raise questions or concerns by providing a Liaison Officer on the Command Staff or a technical specialist(s) in an appropriate ICS section.
An Area Command also may be established if needed, depending on the complexity of the incident and span-of-control needs. An Area Command may be needed to oversee the management of multiple incidents that are being handled by separate ICS organizations or to oversee the management of a very large incident that involves multiple ICS organizations. Area Command may be used when there are a number of incidents in the same area and of the same type (
The NIMS also describes multi-agency coordination groups and centers, such as emergency operations centers, that may be established to support the ICP and coordinate incident-related response activities. The NRF is built on the incident management concepts in NIMS and describes additional federal multi-agency coordination groups and centers that may be activated or used during certain types of federal incident responses (
Readers are referred to the NIMS for additional details on the incident management system. As noted earlier in this preamble, EPA is not taking comments on the substance of the NIMS, only on the NCP changes to align with the NIMS.
The existing preparedness and response management structure for removal actions under the NCP national response system—which brings together the functions of the federal government, state government, and the responsible party to prepare for and achieve an effective and efficient response, where the OSC maintains his or her authority—is consistent with the NIMS. Appropriate preparedness elements of NIMS are used by the federal departments and agencies on the NRT to prepare for NCP responses.
Under the NCP national response system for removal actions, the federal Incident Commander—the individual with the authority to direct and coordinate a removal action at the on-scene level—is the federal OSC. Federal OSCs evaluate a potential or actual release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants or discharge of oil to determine whether a federal removal action is needed, in accordance with existing delegations of authority to OSCs. If a federal response is needed, the removal action may range from overseeing a response by another party, to providing technical assistance, to assuming direction of the response. The extent of the federal response may increase or decrease during the course of the response as needed. If a federal OSC works in a Unified Command with state, tribal, or local governments and/or the responsible party, the OSC maintains his/her NCP authorities.
As explained above, an ICP organization typically has five major functions: Command, operations, planning, logistics, and finance/administration. For NCP removal actions, the management of environmental data is often a crucial element of the response. This key function may be managed through the establishment of an Environmental Unit within the Planning Section of the ICP.
For federally-led NCP removal actions, the responsible party for a discharge or release (if identified) may be part of a Unified Command, if established, and provide the response assets necessary for an effective and efficient response. The responsible party may, however, be directed or re-positioned by the OSC if determined necessary for an effective and efficient response. Responsible party participation in the Unified Command is determined on an incident-specific basis by the OSC.
Multi-agency coordination centers and groups may also be used to support NCP removal actions. For example, the EPA and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) have emergency operations centers in their headquarters and in EPA regional and USCG district offices that may be activated to support the on-scene response. The Regional Response Teams (RRTs) and the NRT described in the NCP are multi-agency coordination groups that also may be activated if needed to provide support to the on-scene response of the federal OSC and to coordinate interagency activities.
EPA developed a robust NIMS implementation plan, established training and certification requirements, and has used the ICS system for emergency responses. EPA has found NIMS ICS to be particularly beneficial in organizing large, complex, multi-jurisdictional emergency responses. Some removal actions have longer planning times before on-site removal activity must begin, while others require a quicker response. The detailed NIMS
In developing the NIMS document, DHS drew upon the traditional ICS used by fire-fighting organizations, but revised it to form a system that is more appropriate for all-hazard emergency response and more flexible for integrating the range of government and private sector assets and authorities that might be included in a federal response. While EPA had not previously adopted the traditional type of ICS for removal actions under the NCP, EPA did have the opportunity to provide input into the modification and implementation of the DHS version of ICS to help ensure it can provide an effective structure for federal NCP emergency removal actions. The DHS NIMS document emphasizes that federal agencies maintain their authorities within the incident command structure, and provides for flexibility, which has addressed EPA's previous concerns about the traditional ICS (59 FR 47387, September 15, 1994). EPA has found that the DHS NIMS ICS can be tailored to provide appropriate coordination across multiple agencies and organizations leading and supporting NCP emergency removal actions.
In § 300.105(e)(1), the term “national response system” would be capitalized.
Several changes are being proposed to Figure 1a in § 300.105(e)(1). The term “Special Forces” would be changed to “Special Teams” to be consistent with the use of “special teams” elsewhere in the NCP. The list of “Special Forces” in Figure 1a would be revised to include the following additional special teams and assets:
The functions and capabilities of these teams are described in the proposed language in § 300.145. These are only some of the federal teams that may provide support for NCP responses. Additional teams may be described in other guidance and reference documents for use by OSCs and Remedial Project Managers (RPMs). Therefore, Figure 1a would also be revised to add a box that says “Others” in this list to be clearer that these are not the only teams available. The order of the teams in Figure 1a would be changed to match the order in which the teams are described in § 300.145.
The diamond in Figure 1a that currently asks “Federal Assistance Required?” would be changed to “Federal Response Required?” This change does not reflect any change in existing NCP authorities. The change is being made to more accurately describe existing NCP authorities. A federal OSC's response to a release or discharge may range from providing assistance (
A new footnote also would be added to Figure 1a. The new footnote would explain that the NRC does not notify RPMs directly of incidents involving their sites. Rather, the NRC notifies the predesignated OSC, who, in turn, notifies the cognizant RPM.
Original footnotes 1 and 2 in Figure 1a would become footnotes 2 and 3, respectively. The newly numbered footnote 2 which currently reads “This includes local representation as well” would be changed to “This includes local and tribal representation as well” to correct a previous oversight. Tribal governments may also participate in the command structure.
Figure 1b in § 300.105(e)(1) would be revised to add the following new special teams to the list under “Sources of Input and Guidance to Area Committees,” “Government”:
“Others” would be added to the end of the list to indicate that additional teams not listed in this Figure may be described in other documents. While existing NCP § 300.210(c)(1) states that Area Committees prepare Area Contingency Plans in consultation with certain special teams—the District Response Groups (DRGs), the National Strike Force Coordination Center (NSFCC), and Scientific Support Coordinators (SSCs)—Area Committees may also request assistance from any special team.
The order and the way in which the special teams are listed in Figure 1b would also be revised to be consistent with the order and way in which the special teams would now be listed in Figure 1a, which would follow the order in which the teams would be listed in revised § 300.145. The current special teams lists in Figure 1a and Figure 1b are slightly different and this change in Figure 1b is intended to avoid any confusion this difference may have caused.
The RRT section of Figure 1b would also be revised. The box that currently says “State(s)” would be revised to say “State(s)/Tribe(s)” to correct a previous oversight. As stated in existing NCP §§ 300.115(d) and (h) and § 300.180, tribal governments may also participate on RRTs.
The footnote to “RRT” on Figure 1b (indicated by an asterisk) would be revised to change “Standard Federal Regions” to “EPA Regions.” The wording of § 300.105(e)(2) also would be revised to change “standard federal regional boundaries” to “EPA regional boundaries.” In addition, the title of Figure 2 in § 300.105(e)(2) would be
Figure 2 in § 300.105(e)(2) also would be corrected to change the current Region “V1” designation to “VI.” In addition, a footnote would be added to Figure 2 to describe the geographic boundaries of the RRTs.
The existing sentence in § 300.115(j)(4)(v) that says RRTs may submit pollution reports to the NRC would be deleted because it is an outdated federal practice that is no longer followed or needed. OSC pollution reports are the key situation reports describing the status of NCP removal actions. These OSC reports are sent or made electronically available to RRTs and the NRT as needed when those teams are activated for an incident, rather than to the NRC. The RRTs and NRTs are the appropriate organizations to receive these reports when needed.
The term “Regional Response Center” in § 300.115(j)(5) would be changed to “Regional Emergency Operations Center” to use terminology for such centers that is more common in incident management systems, again, to aid responders in communicating and working together. This change supports the objectives of the NRF and NIMS for greater consistency in national incident management systems. The last sentence in § 300.115(j)(5) would be further revised by changing the word “provided” to “identified.”
The term “pollution reports” in § 300.115(j)(8) would be changed to “situation reports” to be consistent with DHS and NRF terminology for the periodic reports that describe incident response status and activities. The term “situation report” is also a more accurate description of the contents of these reports and is therefore a more user-friendly name for the reports.
Changes are being proposed to § 300.125(a) and (b) to clarify the language, and to clarify the role and operation of the NRC. Language would be added to paragraph (a) to explain that the NRC also distributes notifications to state and tribal government agencies that have established a written agreement or understanding with the NRC. This is a current practice by the NRC; the language would be modified to better reflect current practice.
Paragraph (b) would be revised to change “The Commandant, USCG” to “The agencies that provide the NRT Chair and Vice Chair.” This change better reflects that both EPA and USCG provide significant support for NRC operations.
A sentence would be added to paragraph (b) to explain that the Director of the NRC is responsible for its operation and management. This does not represent a change in who manages the NRC; it simply helps to distinguish the role of the NRT Chair and Vice Chair from that of the Director and may be helpful information for members of NRT agencies who may need to work with the NRC.
The first three sentences in paragraph (f), and all of paragraphs (h) and (i), in § 300.130 would be deleted and replaced with a note that discusses the NRF. Current paragraphs (f), (h), and (i) refer to the Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan (FRERP) and FRP. The FRERP described how federal radiological responses were conducted, and the FRP described how federal assistance was provided under the Stafford Act. The FRERP and FRP are no longer in effect. Both plans have been replaced by the NRF and supporting documents (
The NRF and supporting documents describe how the NCP may be used for radiological releases and how the NCP relates to Stafford Act assistance. The NCP serves as an operational supplement to the NRF. As explained in this preamble under Subpart A, § 300.3, for some NCP responses, additional procedures under the NRF and supporting documents may apply. When additional NRF procedures are activated for an NCP response, the NCP response will follow the appropriate procedures of both the NCP and NRF.
The existing paragraph (f) refers to the FRERP as the applicable plan for coordinating some federal radiological responses. The FRERP has been replaced with the NRF and its supporting documents, with most of its provisions located in an annex called the Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex. Most radiological incidents that historically have been carried out under the NCP will continue to be handled under the NCP alone, but when the Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex is activated for an NCP response, NCP lead and support agencies will conduct their NCP activities consistent with the Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex. When the Annex is activated for a response to which the NCP also applies, the OSC continues to carry out OSC responsibilities under the NCP, but coordinates those activities with NRF activities as described in the Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex. For example, under the Annex, the Secretary of DHS may coordinate a federal NCP response to a radiological release under presidential directive. The Annex also describes some additional specific federal response assets that are not listed in the NCP but may be requested by the OSC to assist with a federal NCP response to a radiological release, such as the Advisory Team for Environment, Food, and Health.
The existing fourth sentence in paragraph (f), which is a paraphrase of a portion of the CERLCA definition of release in 42 U.S.C. 9601(22)(C), would be deleted and replaced with the exact statutory language for additional clarity.
The federal government may also provide assistance for disasters and emergencies under the Stafford Act. Existing paragraphs (h) and (i) in § 300.130 refer to the Stafford Act and activation of the FRP to provide federal assistance under the Stafford Act. The FRP has been replaced by the NRF and supporting documents, so those paragraphs are being replaced with a note that discusses the NRF.
If an incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the state and local governments and/or federally recognized Indian tribal governments, the President may, under the Stafford Act, act upon a request by the governor
In the event of a declaration of a major disaster or emergency by the President under the Stafford Act, FEMA coordinates the overall federal response and the President appoints a Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) for each affected state or territory to coordinate federal disaster assistance activities. Delivery of federal assistance for Stafford Act responses is facilitated through annexes to the NRF called Emergency Support Functions (ESFs).
EPA and/or USCG may be requested to provide support to address oil and hazardous materials releases under the ESF #10—Oil and Hazardous Materials Response Annex, which further describes how EPA and USCG OSCs and other EPA and USCG personnel would coordinate their response actions with the FCO and FEMA. In general, EPA and USCG OSCs respond at the on-site level to carry out actions to address oil and hazardous materials releases. EPA and USCG also provide ESF #10 representatives to FEMA and other coordination centers as needed, such as the FEMA Joint Field Office(s), Regional Response Coordination Center(s), and National Response Coordination Center. RRTs and the NRT may also be activated to provide support to the OSC for the ESF #10 response. EPA and USCG OSCs also maintain the authority to respond under the NCP if necessary. In this case, coordination with the FCO and FEMA would still occur as described above.
It is important to note that the NRF states that nothing in the NRF is intended to alter or impede the ability of any federal government department or agency to carry out its authorities or meet its responsibilities under applicable laws, executive orders, and directives.
Paragraph (g) in § 300.130 also would be deleted. Paragraph (g) refers to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Department of Defense (DOD), DOE, and FEMA. While the MOU is still in effect, the signatory agencies agreed it is not necessary to reference this MOU in the NCP.
Paragraph (e) would be revised to delete “and NSFCC” because the USCG believes this is an unnecessary burden on OSCs and RPMs during a response.
The phrase “pollution reports” would be changed to “situation reports” in paragraph (m) to be more consistent with terminology used for such status reports under the NRF. This change would also be consistent with the change from “pollution reports” to “situation reports” proposed in § 300.115(j)(8).
Some of the descriptions of existing special teams would be updated or clarified. In paragraph (b)(4), the title “Director, Emergency Response Division” would be changed to “Chief, Environmental Response Team” to address a reorganization in EPA headquarters. The description of EPA's Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT) in paragraph (f) would be divided into two separate subparagraphs and updated. EPA would make minor changes to the activation methods for all of the EPA special teams in this section, including EPA Scientific Support Coordinators (SSCs), to make the activation methods consistent across the EPA teams. Each EPA special team would be able to be contacted via: The EPA Headquarters Emergency Operations Center, EPA representative on the RRT, or EPA manager of the team.
Several additional special teams or resources would be added to the list of assets available to assist OSCs and RPMs. Some of these are new resources, while some were existing resources that were not previously listed in the NCP. Descriptions of the following resources would be added to new paragraphs (i) through (n) of § 300.145:
The proposed language in § 300.145 paragraphs (i) through (n) describes the capabilities of these teams. Additional federal teams that can support NCP responses may be described in other guidance and reference documents. Paragraph (e) would also be modified to add the USCG SERT to the list of resources that OSCs/RPMs may contact for assistance with marine salvage operations.
The acronym “(JIC)” would be added after “Joint Information Center” in paragraph (a).
In paragraph (b), the term “on-scene news office” would be changed to “JIC” to make it consistent with the existing reference to the JIC in paragraph (a) and with NIMS. Under NIMS, a JIC coordinates incident-related public information activities, including acting as the central point of contact for the news media near the scene of an incident. Language would also be added noting that the federal OSC/RPM consults with other appropriate response organizations in locating the JIC to reflect actual practice. “On-scene” would be replaced by “near the location of the incident” to allow flexibility to establish the JIC in a safe location with appropriate support capabilities. The word “federal” would be deleted, as well as a sentence about the facility being headed by a representative of the lead agency, to be consistent with the purpose of a JIC established under the NCP, which is to coordinate public information activities at the tactical level across multi-jurisdictional responding agencies. The JIC would be headed by a single Public Information Officer, who may appoint as many assistants (Assistant Public Information Officers or JIC Specialists) as necessary and the assistants may represent assisting agencies, jurisdictions, and/or other response partners.
A note would be added to § 300.155 that explains that additional NRF public information procedures may be activated and implemented for an NCP response. The NRF contains additional procedures for coordinating federal public information activities in the Emergency Support Function (ESF) #15—External Affairs Annex and supporting documents, which also would be followed as appropriate when ESF #15 is activated for an NCP response. For example, while a JIC may be established by the OSC and other incident commanders near the incident scene under NIMS for an NCP removal action, if the ESF #15 Annex is also activated, the federal government may also establish a national-level JIC. The national-level JIC would coordinate its activities with the local JIC and any other JICs established for the incident. Other ESF #15 communications mechanisms may also be used, such as
The term “OSC report” would be expanded to “OSC after action report” in the title of § 300.165 and in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the section to be more consistent with terminology commonly used in incident management systems for such post-incident reports. This change supports the objectives of the NRF and NIMS for greater consistency in national incident management systems.
A sentence would be added to the introductory paragraph of § 300.170 to recognize that some NRT agencies also may have specific land management laws, policies, and regulations that could inform or affect NCP response actions on federal lands managed by those agencies. For example, proposed § 300.175(b)(9)(i) describes the authority of the DOI USFWS to authorize entry to, and activity on, refuge system lands. The new sentence in § 300.170 would not be a new requirement placed on NCP response actions; it is merely a clarification of roles and authorities that NRT agencies already have. In the next sentence in that paragraph, the phrase “of these agencies” would be deleted because it is repetitive and not needed.
The introductory paragraph in § 300.170 currently uses the word “duties” in each of the three sentences in that paragraph. The proposed rule would delete the word “duties” in these three sentences and replace it with the phrase “certain authorities and responsibilities.” The purpose of this change is to conform the language in the introductory paragraph of § 300.170 with the relevant language in the remainder of § 300.170 and with the title of § 300.175 and the language in § 300.175(a).
Paragraph (b)(1) would be revised to delete the phrase “the Secretary of” because it is an unnecessary level of detail and does not reflect the real intention of paragraph (b)(1), which is to make information available to NRT members, not just “the Secretary.” This is parallel to the intention in paragraph (b)(1) of making information available to RRTs and Area Committees. (In any case, the NRT does not currently have a “Secretary”; it has an Executive Director. Federal agencies typically provide information to the NRT Executive Director for subsequent distribution to NRT members.)
Like the introduction to § 300.170, paragraph (a) in § 300.175 would be modified to recognize that some NRT agencies also may have specific land management laws, policies, and regulations that could inform or affect NCP response actions on federal lands managed by those agencies. Again, this is not a new requirement being placed on NCP response actions; it is merely a clarification of roles and authorities these agencies already had.
Paragraph (b) of § 300.175 would be revised to update and clarify the current responsibilities, organizations, and capabilities of all of the federal agencies listed in paragraph (b), as described in the proposed language.
These revisions include updating the descriptions of USCG and FEMA to show that they are part of DHS. The DHS was established in November 2002 by the passage of the HSA. USCG and FEMA were integrated into the DHS at that time. DHS develops and coordinates the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist threats or attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. DHS coordinates collection and analysis of threat information and domestic activities of terrorists or terrorist groups. DHS coordinates federal resources used in the prevention of, preparation for, response to, or recovery from terrorist attacks, major disasters, or other emergencies within the United States in accordance with its authorities. DHS, through FEMA, administers the NRF and NIMS. DHS and FEMA work with federal, state, tribal and local agencies and private entities in performing these functions.
In addition to USCG and FEMA, the DHS organization includes components responsible for policy, infrastructure protection, intelligence and analysis, domestic nuclear detection, science and technology, customs and border protection, immigration and customs enforcement, and transportation security.
In paragraph (b)(5), which describes DOE's roles and capabilities, the reference to the “FRERP” would be deleted because the FRERP was replaced by the NRF and supporting documents. However, it is not necessary to reference the NRF in this paragraph because DOE can provide support and assistance for NCP responses directly as a member of the NRT, without going through the NRF.
Federal agencies described in § 300.175 may have additional roles and responsibilities, as outlined in the NRF and supporting documents, for incidents that are managed under the NRF.
Figure 4, under paragraph (g) in § 300.205, would be revised to change the current reference to the “Federal Response Plan (FRP)” to the “National Response Framework (NRF)” because the NRF has replaced the FRP. A dotted line would be added between the NRF and the Area Contingency Plans to reflect an additional point of coordination between the two. A footnote would be added to “Facility Response Plan” and “Vessel Response Plan” that would refer readers to § 300.211 for examples of facility and vessel response plans.
A technical correction would be made to paragraph (f) of § 300.211. Paragraph (f) currently states that the federal regulations that implement the response plan requirements under CWA section 311(j)(5) for rolling stock are codified in “49 CFR part 106 et al.” These regulations are found in 49 CFR part 130, so paragraph (f) would be changed to refer to 49 CFR part 130.
A table would be added to the end of § 300.211 that would summarize the information on response plan regulations in paragraphs (a) through (f) of that section for easier readability. The table would also identify the federal department or agency that issues those regulations, and the names of the response plans under those regulations, to provide readers with additional useful information. The last sentence in the introductory paragraph to § 300.211 would be revised to add the phrase “and summarized in Table 1” to introduce the new table.
Section 300.323(a) would be amended to add the word “by” before “the Commandant of the USCG” for clarity. The phrase “spill of national significance” would also be deleted from paragraph (a), and only the acronym “SONS” used, because the
The note after § 300.323(c) would be added to highlight the distinction between the EPA inland zone and USCG coastal zone authority under the NCP to declare a SONS, and any declaration or determination that may be made by other federal officials or other departments and agencies under the NRF. This would include any determinations that may be made by DHS to implement HSPD-5 authorities. For example, under HSPD-5, the Secretary of DHS has the authority to assume overall coordination responsibilities for a federal response to an incident. The Secretary may or may not assume overall federal coordination responsibilities under HSPD-5 for an incident that EPA or USCG declare as a SONS under the NCP. That decision is made by the Secretary. The EPA Administrator and USCG Commandant maintain the authority to designate an incident as a SONS under the NCP. (The USCG Commandant, subject to the Secretary's oversight, direction, and guidance, may declare a SONS and designate a National Incident Commander. See Commandant Instruction 16465.6, Spill of National Significance (SONS) Response Management, May 23, 2012.) If the Secretary assumes overall coordination responsibilities for the federal response to a SONS under HSPD-5, or activates NRF elements in response to a request for support from the EPA or USCG without assuming overall coordination responsibilities, the response is conducted concurrently under the appropriate NCP and NRF procedures.
The Secretary may make a determination that it is not necessary to assume responsibility for coordinating the federal response to a SONS under HSPD-5. Further, EPA and USCG may determine that adequate federal resources are being provided under NCP coordination mechanisms for the response and there is no need to request DHS to activate additional elements of the NRF. In that case, the SONS response may be carried out under the NCP without activating additional federal NRF elements (such as Emergency Support Functions). EPA or USCG, however, would keep DHS informed of its response activities as appropriate to support DHS situational awareness.
It is also possible that the President could make a Stafford Act declaration for a SONS, or that the President could make a Stafford Act declaration for a broader incident that contributes to causing a SONS, such as a catastrophic earthquake that results in widespread impacts, including a SONS. (See the preamble under Subpart B, § 300.130 for a more detailed explanation of the Stafford Act.) In such cases, the SONS response would be carried out under the appropriate NCP and NRF procedures.
This rule proposes a clarification to § 300.405(d). Paragraph (d) currently says that when people contact the NRC to report a release, the NRC will generally need information that will help to characterize the release. Paragraph (d) says this information “will include, but is not limited to. . .” and goes on to provide a list of examples of the types of information the NRC will need. The current list of examples includes the “possible source of the release.” The proposed revisions would clarify paragraph (d) to state “possible source and cause of the release.” The NRC already collects information regarding the cause of the release, even though “cause” is not currently specifically cited as an example in § 300.405(d), so collecting “cause” information would not be a new requirement. The proposed revisions would add “cause” as another specific example in the rule language to better prepare people who notify the NRC that they will be asked for this information. As already stated in § 300.405(d), however, reporting should not be delayed due to not having complete notification information.
Paragraph (f)(3) currently states that if radiological substances are present in a release, the OSC should notify the EPA Radiological Response Coordinator for evaluation and assistance directly or via the NRC, consistent with §§ 300.130(e) and 300.145(f). Paragraph (f)(3) would be revised to: (1) Replace “EPA Radiological Response Coordinator” with “RERT”; (2) change the methods for notification from “directly or via the NRC” to “the EPA Headquarters Emergency Operations Center, EPA representative on the RRT, or on-duty EPA RERT Team Commander in the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air”; and (3) delete the reference to § 300.130(e). “EPA Radiological Response Coordinator” would be replaced with “RERT” because EPA no longer has a position called a “Radiological Response Coordinator.” The notification methods would be changed to be consistent with the changes to notification methods being proposed to the RERT description in § 300.145(f). The reference to § 300.130(e) would be deleted because it is no longer appropriate.
The reference to § 300.130(e) is no longer appropriate because: (1) The existing NCP reference to § 300.130(e) is incorrect; it was intended to be a reference to § 300.130(f) instead; and (2) the FRERP that is cited in the existing § 300.130(f) has been replaced by the NRF, including the Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex, and the NRF does not contain specific language about an OSC contacting the RERT for assistance with NCP removal actions involving a radioactive substance. Paragraph 300.130(e) in the existing NCP refers to discharges originating in the Outer Continental Shelf, which was not the original intention for that reference in § 300.405(f)(3). The original intention in § 300.405(f)(3) had been to refer to § 300.130(f), which refers to the old FRERP in the existing NCP. The NCP final rule issued on March 8, 1990, correctly cited § 300.130(f) in § 300.405(f)(3) (55 FR 8842, March 8, 1990). However, when other revisions to the NCP were published on September 15, 1994, the § 300.130(f) citation in § 300.405 was erroneously changed to § 300.130(e) (59 FR 47448, September 15, 1994). So, the existing NCP reference to § 300.130(e) in § 300.405(f)(3) is an inadvertent error; it should have been a reference to § 300.130(f), which references the FRERP in the existing NCP. However, as explained earlier in this preamble under the changes to § 300.130, the FRERP has been replaced by the NRF and supporting documents, including the Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex. The NRF and Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex do not contain specific language stating that an OSC should notify the EPA Radiological Response Coordinator (or the RERT) for assistance with NCP removal actions involving a radioactive substance, so it would not be appropriate to cite the NRF here in § 300.405(f)(3).
Paragraph (f) of § 300.415 would be revised to change “FEMA” to “EPA” and “shall” to “may.” FEMA was delegated the authority to conduct temporary relocations for CERCLA responses under Executive Order 12580, Section 2(c), but FEMA re-delegated that authority to EPA in 1990. The proposed revisions, therefore, explain that the NCP lead agency may ask EPA to conduct a temporary relocation or request that state or local officials conduct an evacuation, where necessary
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2050-0046. EPA is not revising the existing notification requirements that are contained in 40 CFR part 302; it is merely clarifying in § 300.405(d) that the NRC asks callers about both the source and cause of a release, if known. The NRC already collects information regarding the cause of the release, even though “cause” is not currently cited as an example in § 300.405(d), so collecting “cause” information would not be a new requirement. The proposed revisions would add “cause” as another specific example in the rule language to better prepare people who notify the NRC that they will be asked for this information.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This rule adds no new burden on small entities. EPA is not revising the existing NRC notification requirements that are contained in 40 CFR part 302; it is merely clarifying in § 300.405(d) that the NRC asks callers about both the source and cause of the release, if known. The NRC already collects information regarding the cause of the release, even though “cause” is not currently cited as an example in § 300.405(d), so collecting “cause” information would not be a new requirement. The proposed revisions would add “cause” as another specific example in the rule language to better prepare people who notify the NRC that they will be asked for this information. We have therefore concluded that this action will add no new regulatory burden on all directly regulated small entities.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandates as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. That is, this action proposes changes that align the NCP with the NRF and NIMS and updates the descriptions and capabilities of the NRT federal agencies and how they operating, including the establishment of DHS.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments, nor would it impose substantial direct compliance costs on them. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. Although this action does not have impacts on tribes, it does propose to add language that would reflect existing NCP practices regarding coordination with tribes for activities occurring on tribal lands, such as adding language to NCP Figures to show that tribal governments may participate in the incident command structure and on RRTs.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. This action does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. EPA is proposing an alignment of the NCP with the DHS's NRF and NIMS and an update of federal department and agency organizations and capabilities. These proposed changes are primarily administrative and procedural in nature. They look to provide a consistent nationwide approach for federal, state, and local governments to work effectively and efficiently together to prepare for and respond to domestic incidents, regardless of cause, size, or complexity, and to more accurately describe federal department and agency capabilities.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous materials, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Occupational safety and health, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund,
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 300 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1321; 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
The NCP is required by section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9605, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), Public Law 99-499, (hereinafter CERCLA), and by section 311(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1321(d), as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), Public Law 101-380. In Executive Order (E.O.) 12777 (56 FR 54757, October 22, 1991), the President delegated to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the responsibility for the amendment of the NCP. Amendments to the NCP are coordinated with members of the National Response Team (NRT) prior to publication for notice and comment. The NCP is applicable to response actions taken pursuant to the authorities under CERCLA and section 311 of the CWA, as amended.
The addition reads as follows:
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(b) * * *
The additions and revisions read as follows:
1.
2.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(d) * * *
(e)(1) The organizational concepts of the National Response System (NRS) are depicted in the following Figures 1a and 1b:
(2) The EPA regional boundaries (which are also the geographic areas of responsibility for the RRTs) are shown in Figure 2:
(j) * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) Help the OSC/RPM prepare information releases for the public and for communication with the NRT; and
(iv) If the circumstances warrant, make recommendations to the regional or district head of the agency providing the OSC/RPM that a different OSC/RPM should be designated.
(5) At the regional level, a Regional Emergency Operations Center (REOC) may provide facilities and personnel for communications, information storage, and other requirements for coordinating response. The location of each REOC should be identified in the RCP.
(8) Notification of the RRT may be appropriate when full activation is not necessary, with systematic communication of situation reports or other means to keep RRT members informed as to actions of potential concern to a particular agency, or to assist in later RRT evaluation of regionwide response effectiveness.
(a) The National Response Center (NRC) is a component of and serves the National Response System, and is located at USCG Headquarters. It serves
(b) The agencies that provide the NRT Chair and Vice Chair, in conjunction with other NRT agencies, shall provide the necessary personnel, communications, plotting facilities, and equipment for the NRC. The operation and management of the NRC is the responsibility of the Director of the NRC.
(f) Release of source, byproduct, or special nuclear material from a nuclear incident, as those terms are defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, if such release is subject to requirements with respect to financial protection established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under section 170 of such Act, is excluded from the definition of release in 42 U.S.C. 9601(22)(C).
(e) The OSC/RPM should consult regularly with the RRT, as appropriate, in carrying out the NCP and keep the RRT, as appropriate, informed of activities under the NCP.
(m) The OSC shall submit situation reports to the RRT and other appropriate agencies as significant developments occur during response actions, through communications networks or procedures agreed to by the RRT and covered in the RCP.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) The NSF is a special team established by the USCG, including the three USCG Strike Teams and the NSFCC. The NSF is available to assist OSCs/RPMs in their preparedness and response duties.
(b) * * *
(4) OSC/RPM or RRT requests for ERT support should be made through the EPA Headquarters Emergency Operations Center, EPA representative on the RRT, or EPA Headquarters, Chief, Environmental Response Team.
(c) * * *
(1) Generally, SSCs are provided by NOAA in the coastal zone, and by EPA in the inland zone. OSC/RPM requests for SSC support can be made directly to the SSC assigned to the area or to the agency member of the RRT. EPA SSCs can also be requested through the EPA Headquarters Emergency Operations Center or the team-specific EPA point of contact designated in this section for the EPA special team whose type of expertise is needed. NOAA SSCs can also be requested through NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration. NOAA SSCs are assigned to USCG Districts and are supported by a scientific support team that includes expertise in environmental chemistry, oil slick tracking, pollutant transport modeling, natural resources at risk, environmental tradeoffs of countermeasures and cleanup, and information management.
(e) For marine salvage operations, OSCs/RPMs with responsibility for monitoring, evaluating, or supervising these activities should request assistance from the USCG Salvage Engineering Response Team (SERT), DOD, the Strike Teams, or commercial salvors as necessary.
(f)(1) The Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT) is established by EPA in accordance with its radiological disaster and emergency responsibilities. The RERT can provide response and technical assistance to the OSC/RPM for incidents or sites containing radiological hazards. The RERT can provide technical advice and assistance to prevent or minimize threats to public health and the environment; provide advice on protective measures to reduce or minimize radiation exposure; provide assessments of dose; perform site assessment, contamination surveys, monitoring, sampling, laboratory analyses and data assessments to assess and characterize environmental impacts; and provide technical advice and assistance for containment, cleanup, waste management, restoration, and recovery following a radiological incident. The RERT directly supports EPA's participation in the Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center (FRMAC), when the FRMAC is activated.
(2) The OSC/RPM may request RERT support through the EPA Headquarters Emergency Operations Center, EPA representative on the RRT, or on-duty EPA RERT Team Commander in the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air.
(i) The U.S. Coast Guard Incident Management Assistance Team (CG-IMAT) is a scalable resource designed to assist federal OSCs by providing highly trained personnel who can assist in: Major incident management activities; ongoing training and qualification of Coast Guardsmen throughout the United States; carrying out exercises which validate plans and procedures and build confidence in capabilities; and, for the Coast Guard in general, the ongoing development of competent and effective management capabilities at Coast Guard
(1) Incident Management Capability—The CG-IMAT is a Type-1 IMAT that can assist operational commanders to successfully manage incidents and events through the deployment of highly trained individuals, four-person Away Teams, 15-person Deployable Elements, or the entire CG-IMAT. The structure provides adaptive force packages to best support the needs of the operational commanders.
(2) Training Support Capability—The CG-IMAT can assist USCG Areas, Districts, Sectors, and Force Readiness Command in the conduct of NIMS training and support ongoing efforts to certify individuals in position-specific qualifications.
(3) Exercise Support Capability—The CG-IMAT can employ specific personnel to assist in the development, training, conduct, and evaluation of exercises.
(4) The Public Information Assist Team (PIAT) is an element of the CG-IMAT that is available to assist federal OSCs to meet the needs for public information during a response or exercise.
(5) For non-USCG federal OSCs, requests for CG-IMAT support can be made through the USCG Headquarters National Command Center. Requests for PIAT assistance can be made through the CG-IMAT or NRC.
(j)(1) The USCG SERT can provide immediate salvage engineering support in response to vessel casualties and emergencies. This includes independent technical evaluation of the situation and assistance in formulating practical and effective solutions.
(2) The SERT can provide expertise in evaluating vessel casualties, reviewing and developing salvage plans, and providing salvage technical assistance directly to the OSC/RPM. The SERT has access to vessel plans and salvage engineering analysis software, and knowledge of commercial vessel construction and stability. The SERT is able to deploy and provide on-site assistance.
(3) The OSC/RPM may request support through the NRC, directly from the SERT, or through the USCG Headquarters National Command Center or USCG Marine Safety Center.
(k)(1) The EPA Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear Consequence Management Advisory Team (CBRN CMAT) can provide response and technical assistance for incidents or sites involving chemical, biological, radiological and/or nuclear hazards. Scientific and technical expertise can be provided to the OSC/RPM for all phases of CBRN environmental response, including characterization, decontamination and cleanup, clearance, and waste management. The CBRN CMAT directly supports EPA's participation in the FRMAC, when a FRMAC is activated.
(2) The CBRN CMAT can provide specialized scientific support and technical expertise specifically for characterization, decontamination and cleanup, clearance, and waste management of buildings and building contents, public infrastructure, transportation systems, and outdoor spaces. The CBRN CMAT engages in evaluating, advising, leading, or collaborating on various applied research projects that can support CBRN field response.
(3) The CBRN CMAT maintains technologically advanced response assets and capabilities, including but not limited to, an airborne stand-off chemical and radiological detection, infrared and photographic imagery platform that provides results within minutes, and a mobile laboratory designed to detect chemical warfare agents and toxic industrial chemicals.
(4) The OSC/RPM may request CBRN CMAT assistance through the EPA Headquarters Emergency Operations Center, EPA representative on the RRT, or EPA Headquarters, Director, CBRN Consequence Management Advisory Division.
(l)(1) The EPA National Criminal Enforcement Response Team (NCERT) in the Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training supports environmental crime investigations involving chemical, biological, or radiological releases to the environment. The team can also provide specialized law enforcement services in support of the EPA's overall mission to protect human health and the environment.
(2) The NCERT provides specially trained Law Enforcement Officers with all-hazards response capability to collect forensic evidence within contaminated zones and serve as law enforcement liaisons with other law enforcement agencies. The NCERT maintains several strategically placed response platforms that contain safety and forensic equipment to properly process a contaminated crime scene.
(3) The OSC/RPM may request NCERT support through the EPA Headquarters Emergency Operations Center, EPA representative on the RRT, or EPA Headquarters, Director, Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training.
(m)(1) The OSHA Response Team can support the OSC/RPM in the area of response worker safety and health. The team can provide safety and health expertise and support for incidents involving toxic industrial chemicals, chemical warfare agents, biological agents, ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, collapsed structures, demolition and other construction-type activities. The team is comprised of certified industrial hygienists, certified health physicists, professional engineers, toxicologists, occupational physicians, and specialized safety experts.
(2) The OSHA Response Team is available to assist OSCs/RPMs in their preparedness and response duties. Requests for support should be made through the NRC, or directly to OSHA's Health Response Team Director, located at OSHA's Salt Lake Technical Center in Sandy, Utah or OSHA's Director, Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management located in OSHA's national office.
(n)(1) DOE has the following special teams:
(i) Aerial Measuring System (AMS) can provide a rapid survey of radiation contamination during a radiological emergency by using aircraft equipped to detect radioactive contamination on the ground.
(ii) Consequence Management Home Team (CMHT) can assist field assets in the support of federal, state, tribal, and local response organizations with modeling, radiological operations planning, field monitoring techniques, and the analysis, interpretation and distribution of radiological data. These reach-back capabilities can be activated quickly to support public safety and minimize the health and environmental impact of a nuclear or radiological incident.
(iii) Consequence Management Response Team (CMRT) can provide data collection, assessment, and interpretation for decision makers in the event of a radiological incident.
(iv) National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center (NARAC) can provide near real-time assessment of atmospheric releases for rapid decision-making during an emergency involving a nuclear or radiological release.
(v) Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site (REAC/TS) can provide reach-back radiation medical assistance or deploy personnel and equipment for direct medical care in support of a radiological emergency. The REAC/TS also conducts robust
(vi) Radiological Assistance Program (RAP) can provide first response radiological assistance in the detection and identification of radiological and nuclear threats, and responds to events involving the release of radiological materials in the environment.
(2) All DOE teams may be requested through the DOE Watch Office, DOE Headquarters (National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of Emergency Operations). All teams may be requested independently of any other response construct they support. For example, the CMHT, CMRT, or AMS may be requested independent of a request for a Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center (FRMAC), which those teams normally support as the DOE component of the FRMAC when a FRMAC is activated. Deployed CMRT and RAP teams are typically supported by the CMHT. An OSC/RPM request for a CMRT or RAP team would include the support of the CMHT when DOE determines such CMHT support is needed.
(a) When an incident occurs, it is imperative to give the public prompt, accurate information on the nature of the incident and the actions underway to mitigate the damage. OSCs/RPMs and community relations personnel should ensure that all appropriate public and private interests are kept informed and that their concerns are considered throughout a response. They should coordinate with available public affairs/community relations resources to carry out this responsibility by establishing, as appropriate, a Joint Information Center (JIC) bringing together resources from federal and state agencies and the responsible party.
(b) A JIC may be established near the location of the incident to coordinate media relations and to issue official information on an incident. The OSC/RPM, in consultation with other response organizations as appropriate, determines the location of the JIC, but every effort should be made to locate it near the scene of the incident. If a participating agency believes public interest warrants the issuance of statements and a JIC has not been established, the affected agency should recommend its establishment. All federal news releases or statements by participating agencies should be cleared through the OSC/RPM. Information dissemination relating to natural resource damage assessment activities shall be coordinated through the lead administrative trustee. The designated lead administrative trustee may assist the OSC/RPM by disseminating information on issues relating to damage assessment activities. Following termination of removal activity, information dissemination on damage assessment activities shall be through the lead administrative trustee.
(a) As requested by the NRT or RRT, the OSC/RPM shall submit to the NRT or RRT a complete report on the removal operation and the actions taken. The RRT shall review the OSC after action report and send to the NRT a copy of the OSC report with its comments or recommendations within 30 days after the RRT has received the OSC report.
(b) The OSC after action report shall record the situation as it developed, the actions taken, the resources committed, and the problems encountered.
Federal agencies listed in § 300.175 have certain authorities and responsibilities established by statute, executive order, or Presidential directive which may apply to federal response actions following, or in prevention of, the discharge of oil or release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Some of these agencies also have specific land management laws, policies, and regulations that may inform or affect response actions on federal lands under the jurisdiction, custody, or control of the agency. Some also have certain authorities and responsibilities relating to the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of equivalent natural resources injured or lost as a result of such discharge or release as described in subpart G of this part. The NRT, RRT, and Area Committee organizational structure, and the NCP, RCPs and ACPs, described in § 300.210, provide for agencies to coordinate with each other in carrying out these authorities and responsibilities.
(b) * * *
(1) Make necessary information available to the NRT, RRTs, Area Committees, and OSCs/RPMs.
(a) During preparedness planning or in an actual response, various federal agencies may be called upon to provide assistance in their respective areas of expertise, as indicated in paragraph (b) of this section, consistent with agency capabilities and legal authorities, including any federal land management laws, policies, and/or regulations that may inform or affect response actions taken on federally controlled land.
(b) The federal agencies include:
(1) USCG, as provided in 14 U.S.C. 1-3, is an agency in DHS, except when operating as an agency in the United States Navy in time of war. USCG provides the NRT vice chair, co-chairs for the standing RRTs, and predesignated OSCs for the coastal zone, as described in § 300.120(a)(1). USCG maintains continuously manned facilities which can be used for command, control, and surveillance of oil discharges and hazardous substance releases occurring in the coastal zone. USCG also offers expertise in domestic and international fields of port safety and security, maritime law enforcement, ship navigation and construction, vessel salvage, the manning, operation, and safety of vessels and marine facilities, and vessel environmental pollution control. USCG may enter into a contract or cooperative agreement with the appropriate state in order to implement a response action. USCG manages the Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) and a Spill of National Significance (SONS) exercise program to test spill response plans at all levels of industry and government. The USCG's NPFC manages the OSLTF.
(2) EPA chairs the NRT and co-chairs, with the USCG, the standing RRTs; provides predesignated OSCs for all inland areas for which an ACP is required under CWA section 311(j) and for discharges and releases occurring in the inland zone and RPMs for remedial actions except as otherwise provided; and generally provides the SSC for responses in the inland zone. EPA provides expertise on human health and ecological effects of oil discharges or releases of hazardous substances,
(3) FEMA is an agency in DHS whose mission includes providing guidance, policy and program advice, and technical assistance in hazardous materials, chemical, and radiological emergency preparedness activities (including planning, training, and exercising). The FEMA Protection and National Preparedness Office administers financial and technical assistance to state and local governments to support their efforts to develop and maintain an effective emergency management and response capability.
(4) DOD has responsibility to take all action necessary with respect to releases where either the release is on, or the sole source of the release is from, any facility or vessel under the jurisdiction, custody, or control of DOD. In the event of releases that are unrelated to DOD, DOD may, consistent with its operational requirements and upon request of the OSC, provide appropriate support to other federal agencies. In such event, the following components of DOD may have particular relevance or expertise:
(i) United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) can provide design services, construction services, channel maintenance, removal of navigation obstructions, contract formation and administrative services, technical support for responses involving chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear materials, and assistance in conducting temporary relocations. USACE has discretionary authority in an emergency situation to remove sunken vessels that are located in a federally-maintained navigable channel under 33 U.S.C. 403 and 409. USACE also has limited authority to remove debris from federally-maintained navigable channels and waterways under section 202 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-587). The USACE Regulatory Program administers Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, which requires Department of Army (DA) authorization for work or structures in, over, or under navigable waters of the U.S. or affecting the course, location, or condition of those waters; section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which requires DA authorization for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands; and section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, which requires DA authorization for the transportation of dredged material for ocean disposal.
(ii) The Pentagon office of Joint Director of Military Support allocates DOD resources in response to requests from civil authorities. Such requests for assistance are typically processed and acted upon after a written request via the DOD Executive Secretary.
(iii) U.S. Northern Command is the domestic combatant command which also has responsibility, when directed by the President or Secretary of Defense, to provide support and assistance to civil authorities, including consequence management operations.
(iv) U.S. Navy Supervisor of Salvage (SUPSALV) is the DOD component most knowledgeable and experienced in ship salvage, harbor clearance, towing, oil and hazardous spill response, underwater ship repair, and diving. The U.S. Navy has an extensive array of specialized equipment and personnel available for use in these areas as well as specialized containment, collection, and removal equipment specifically designed for salvage-related and open-sea pollution incidents. In addition to the capabilities provided by SUPSALV, DOD may also, consistent with operational commitments, provide locally deployed Navy oil spill response equipment and operating personnel.
(5) DOE generally provides designated OSCs/RPMs that are responsible for taking all response actions with respect to releases where either the release is on, or the sole source of the release is from, any facility or vessel under its jurisdiction, custody, or control, including vessels bareboat-chartered and operated. In addition, DOE provides advice and assistance to other OSCs/RPMs for emergency actions essential for the control of immediate radiological hazards. Incidents that qualify for DOE radiological advice and assistance are those believed to involve source, by-product, or special nuclear material or other ionizing radiation sources, including radium, and other naturally occurring radionuclides, as well as particle accelerators. Radiological assistance is available as described in § 300.145(n). In addition, DOE can provide radiological monitoring and assessment assistance to the OSC/RPM as part of the FRMAC, when the FRMAC is activated. DOE leads the FRMAC for the initial response, then transitions FRMAC leadership to EPA at a mutually agreed upon time.
(6) Department of Agriculture (USDA) has scientific and technical capability to measure, evaluate, and monitor, either on the ground or by use of aircraft, situations where natural resources including soil, water, wildlife, and vegetation have been impacted by fire, insects and diseases, floods, hazardous substances, and other natural or man-caused emergencies. USDA may be contacted through Forest Service emergency staff officers who are the designated members of the RRT. Agencies within USDA have relevant capabilities and expertise as follows:
(i) Forest Service has responsibility for protection and management of national forests and national grasslands. Forest Service has personnel, laboratory, and field capability to measure, evaluate, monitor, and control as needed, releases of pesticides and other hazardous substances on lands under its jurisdiction. Forest Service can also provide Incident Management Teams and support logistics such as communications and personnel.
(ii) Agriculture Research Service (ARS) administers an applied and developmental research program in animal and plant protection and production; the use and improvement of soil, water, and air; the processing, storage, and distribution of farm products; and human nutrition. ARS has the capabilities to provide regulation of, and evaluation and training for, employees exposed to biological,
(iii) Natural Resources Conservation Service has personnel in nearly every county in the nation who are knowledgeable in soil, agronomy, engineering, and biology. These personnel can help to predict the effects of pollutants on soil and their movements over and through soils. Technical specialists can assist in identifying potential hazardous waste disposal sites and provide review and advice on plans for remedial measures.
(iv) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) can respond in an emergency to regulate movement of diseased or infected organisms to prevent the spread and contamination of non-affected areas and assist in animal carcass disposal. APHIS/Wildlife Services can also provide assistance in the assessment of wildlife impacts, hazing and wildlife capture and deterrence, and other wildlife-related services.
(v) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has responsibility to prevent meat and poultry products contaminated with harmful substances from entering human food channels. In emergencies, FSIS works with other federal and state agencies to establish acceptability for slaughter of exposed or potentially exposed animals and their products.
(7) DOC, through NOAA, provides trust resource representation to the NRT and RRTs, consultations on protected and endangered species, and scientific and operational support for responding to emergency events and contingency planning in coastal and marine areas and the Great Lakes. NOAA resources are available through the regional NOAA SSC, RRT representative, or through the NOAA Desk at the DHS National Operations Center. Specific NOAA responsibilities and capabilities are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(8) HHS assists with the assessment, preservation, and protection of human health and helps ensure the availability of essential human services. HHS provides technical and nontechnical assistance in the form of advice, guidance, and resources to other federal agencies as well as territorial, tribal, state and local governments.
(i) The principal HHS response is coordinated from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR). Within HHS, the primary response to a hazardous materials emergency comes from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Both ATSDR and CDC have a 24-hour emergency response capability wherein scientific and technical personnel are available to provide technical assistance to the lead federal agency and state and local response agencies on human health threat assessment and analysis, and exposure prevention, recovery, and mitigation. Such assistance is used for situations requiring evacuation of affected areas, human exposure to hazardous materials, and technical advice on mitigation and prevention. CDC takes the lead during petroleum releases regulated under the CWA and OPA, while ATSDR takes the lead during chemical releases under CERCLA. Both agencies are mutually supportive and have a centralized point of contact for supporting NCP responses.
(ii) Other HHS agencies involved in support during hazardous materials incidents either directly or through the ASPR and/or ATSDR/CDC include the Food and Drug Administration, Health Resources and Services Administration, Indian Health Service, Administration for Children and Families, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and National Institutes of Health (NIH).
(iii) Statutory authority for HHS/NIH/National Institutes for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) involvement in hazardous materials accident prevention is non-regulatory in nature and focused on two primary areas for preventing community and worker exposure to hazardous materials releases: worker safety training and basic research activities. Under section 126 of SARA, NIEHS is given statutory authority for supporting development of curricula and model training programs for waste workers and chemical emergency responders. Under Title IX, section 901(h) of the Clean Air Act Amendments, NIEHS also is authorized to conduct basic research on air pollutants, as well as train physicians in environmental health. Federal research and training in hazardous materials release prevention represents an important non-regulatory activity and supplements ongoing private sector programs.
(9) Department of the Interior (DOI) protects, manages, and provides access to U.S. natural and cultural resources and historic properties and to mineral resources in offshore waters of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). DOI protects and manages the Nation's natural resources and cultural heritage;
(i) United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): Provides expertise to protect threatened and endangered species and their habitats, migratory birds, anadromous fish, certain marine mammals, sea turtles on-shore, and historic properties, including input on appropriate cleanup techniques, actions and end points. Serves as the focal point within DOI for providing consultations to OSCs/RPMs regarding threatened or endangered species and their habitats. Coordinates all federal permitting for and oversight of bird hazing, collection, and treatment activities and coordination of all federal permitting activities for hazing, collecting, rescuing, and holding migratory birds, certain marine mammals, and threatened and endangered species. Authorizes entry to, and oversees activities on, national wildlife refuge system lands.
(ii) National Park Service (NPS): Responsible for protection and management of units of the National Park System including, but not limited to, National Parks, National Recreation Areas, National Seashores, National Historic Sites, National Battlefield Parks, National Monuments, and Wild and Scenic Rivers. Provides advice on and participates in activities affecting historic properties and cultural resources. For incidents involving NPS lands and/or resources, NPS can participate in preparedness activities and response decision-making to address access, sensitive natural and cultural resources and historic properties, protection priorities, public health and safety, law enforcement, and other issues related to removal and remediation actions taken or planned on NPS-managed lands. NPS also has independent authority under the Park System Resource Protection Act 16 U.S.C. 19jj for recovery of costs on response actions taken to minimize the destruction, loss, or injury to park system resources.
(iii) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS): Performs research in support of biological resource management; inventories, monitors, and reports on the status of and trends in the nation's biotic resources; and transfers the information gained in research and monitoring to resource managers and others concerned with the care, use, and conservation of the nation's natural resources. USGS biologic research laboratories can advise and support NCP responses. USGS can also provide support services related to geology, hydrology (ground water and surface water), geospatial information, and natural hazards.
(iv) Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Responsible for authorization of entry to, and resource protection of, the land and minerals managed by BLM. BLM provides expertise in emergency response, particularly for fire and hazardous materials incidents. Many BLM offices are equipped to provide assistance with sampling, investigation, surveillance, and security. BLM also has expertise in on-shore energy production, cadastral survey, cultural and historic properties, natural resources, and federal property acquisition and disposal.
(v) Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM): Promotes energy independence, environmental protection, and economic development through responsible, science-based management of offshore conventional and renewable energy and marine mineral resources. BOEM's Office of Environmental Programs conducts environmental reviews, including National Environmental Policy Act analyses and compliance documents for each major stage of energy development planning. These analyses inform the bureau's decisions on its five year OCS oil and gas leasing program, and conventional and renewable energy leasing and development activities. Additionally, BOEM's scientists conduct and oversee environmental studies to inform policy decisions relating to the management of energy and marine mineral resources on the OCS.
(vi) Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE): Regulates and oversees the exploration, development, and production operations for oil and natural gas on the OCS to ensure that it is done in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. BSEE's functions include oil and gas permitting, facility inspections, regulations and standards development, safety research, environmental compliance and enforcement, and oil spill prevention and readiness for facilities located in both federal (OCS) and state waters seaward of the coastline that handle, store, or transport oil. BSEE reviews and approves producers' oil spill response plans, and conducts readiness capability assessments through unannounced oil spill exercises and inspection of oil spill response equipment. During oil spills from offshore facilities seaward of the coastline, BSEE provides expertise on source control activities under the direction of the federal OSC. BSEE also funds applied oil spill response research and manages Ohmsett—the National Oil Spill Response and Renewable Energy Test Facility—through its Oil Spill Response Research Program.
(vii) Bureau of Reclamation (BOR): Provides advice and information on operation, control, and maintenance of water systems and related resources, including dams, reservoirs, and channels. BOR has expertise in engineering and hydrology and can provide design services, construction, contracting, oversight and administration activity.
(viii) Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement: Provides advice on surface coal mining, including abandoned coal mined lands, coal outcrop fires, coal mine wastes, waste bank stability, and toxic drainage.
(ix) Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA): Assists in coordinating and communicating with, and obtaining access to, Indian lands and tribal officials. BIA has many programs to assist tribal governments and uphold Indian trust responsibilities.
(x) Office of Insular Affairs: Provides assistance to American Samoa, Guam, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Republic of Palau, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. May provide intergovernmental expertise to foster communications to implement the NCP in these areas.
(xi) Office of Aviation Services: Provides access to DOI-approved aircraft, including on-scene inspection and certification teams, and arranges for air traffic control via the Federal Aviation Administration.
(10) Department of Justice (DOJ) can provide expert advice on complicated legal questions arising from discharges or releases, and federal agency responses. In addition, DOJ represents the federal government, including its agencies, in litigation relating to such discharges or releases. Other legal issues or questions shall be directed to the federal agency counsel for the agency providing the OSC/RPM for the response. DOJ components, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and Drug Enforcement Administration, can coordinate with OSCs on investigative and enforcement activities.
(11) Department of Labor (DOL), through OSHA and the states operating plans approved under section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, has authority to conduct safety and health inspections of hazardous waste sites to assure that employees are being protected and to determine if the site is in compliance with:
(i) Safety and health standards and regulations promulgated by OSHA (or the states) in accordance with section 126 of SARA and all other applicable standards; and
(ii) Regulations promulgated under the Occupational and Safety Health Act and its general duty clause. OSHA inspections may be self-generated, consistent with its program operations and objectives, or may be conducted in response to requests from EPA or another lead agency, or in response to accidents or employee complaints. OSHA may also conduct inspections at hazardous waste sites in those states with approved plans that choose not to exercise their jurisdiction to inspect such sites. On request, OSHA will provide advice and consultation to EPA and other NRT/RRT agencies as well as to the OSC/RPM regarding hazards to persons engaged in response activities. OSHA may also take any other action necessary to assure that employees are properly protected at such response activities.
(12) DOT provides response expertise pertaining to transportation of oil or hazardous substances by all modes of transportation. Through the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT offers expertise in the requirements for packaging, handling, and transporting regulated hazardous materials. DOT, through PHMSA, establishes oil discharge contingency planning requirements for pipelines, transport by rail and containers or bulk transport of oil.
(13) Department of State (DOS) plays a key role in supporting the development of international joint contingency plans. It will also help to coordinate an international response when discharges or releases cross international boundaries or involve foreign flag vessels. Additionally, DOS will coordinate requests for assistance from foreign governments and U.S. proposals for conducting research at incidents that occur in waters of other countries.
(14) Nuclear Regulatory Commission will respond, as appropriate, to releases of radioactive materials by its licensees, in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission incident response procedures to monitor the actions of those licensees and assure that the public health and environment are protected and adequate recovery operations are instituted. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will keep EPA informed of any significant actual or potential releases in accordance with procedural agreements. In addition, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will provide advice to the OSC/RPM when assistance is required in identifying the source and character of other hazardous substance releases where the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has licensing authority for activities utilizing radioactive materials.
(15) General Services Administration (GSA) provides logistical support for a variety of goods and services via its acquisitions capability to federal, state, tribal, local and non-governmental organization entities. GSA also provides leasing support for needed facilities; transportation services for air, land, or sea; and telecommunications support. GSA can provide advisory assistance to other government agencies to facilitate lodging, charter air, and vehicle rentals, among other items, off of its Federal Supply Schedules.
(g) * * *
The additions and revisions read as follows:
This section describes and cross-references the regulations that implement section 311(j)(5) of the CWA. A tank vessel, as defined under section 2101 of title 46, U.S. Code, an offshore facility, and an onshore facility that, because of its location, could reasonably expect to cause substantial harm to the environment by discharging into or on the navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or exclusive economic zone must prepare and submit a plan for responding, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case discharge, and to a substantial threat of such a discharge, of oil or a hazardous substance. These response plans are required to be consistent with applicable Area Contingency Plans. These regulations are codified as follows and summarized in table 1 to § 300.211:
(f) For rolling stock, these regulations are codified in 49 CFR part 130.
(a) A discharge may be classified as a SONS by the Administrator of EPA for discharges occurring in the inland zone and by the Commandant of the USCG for discharges occurring in the coastal zone.
(d) The NRC will generally need information that will help to characterize the release. This will include, but not be limited to: Location of the release; type(s) of material(s) released; an estimate of the quantity of material released; possible source and cause of the release; and date and time of the release. Reporting under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section shall not be delayed due to incomplete notification information.
(f) * * *
(3) If radioactive substances are present in a release, the RERT should be notified for evaluation and assistance through the EPA Headquarters Emergency Operations Center, EPA representative on the RRT, or on-duty EPA RERT Team Commander in the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, consistent with § 300.145(f).
(f) Where necessary to protect public health or welfare, the lead agency may request that EPA conduct a temporary relocation or that state/local officials conduct an evacuation.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
Interested parties may file comments on the NPRM on or before January 28, 2016, and reply comments on or before February 12, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 15-285; FCC 15-155, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection modifications proposed in the NPRM should be submitted to the Commission via email to
For further information, contact Michael Rowan, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-1883, email
This is a summary of the Commission's document in WT Docket No. 15-285, DA 16-26, released on January 11, 2016. The full text of the document is available for public inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Additionally, the complete item is available on the Commission's Web site at
1. On November 20, 2015, the Commission released the NPRM in WT Docket No. 15-285, FCC 15-155, regarding Hearing Aid Compatibility Benchmarks. The NPRM provided that comments are due on January 14, 2016, and that reply comments are due on January 29, 2016. On January 8, 2016, the Law Firm of Blooston, Mordkofsky, Dickens, Duffy & Prendergast, LLP and the Rural Wireless Association, Inc. filed a Joint Request for Extension of Time to File Comments seeking to extend the comment deadline based on the proximity of the January 15, 2016 deadline for submitting annual hearing aid compatibility reports for the 2015 reporting period.
2. The Commissions notes that extensions of time are not routinely granted, and states that such extensions may be warranted when, among other things, the additional time will serve the public interest. The Commission finds that providing a limited extension in this proceeding would be beneficial to the development of a complete record on the issues and that an extension of time therefore serves the public interest. The Commission extends the deadline for filing comments to January 28, 2016 and the deadline for filing reply comments to February 12, 2016.
3. The Commission takes this action pursuant to authority found in section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), and sections 0.131, 0.331, and 1.46 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.131, 0.331, and 1.46.
4. The proceeding that the NPRM in WT Docket No. 15-285, FCC 15-155, initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
5. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on the NPRM on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. All filings related to the NPRM should refer to WT Docket No. 15-285. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies.
•
•
6. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
7. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM).
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to amend, by regulation, the means of notification required under the Safety Act, to be in a manner other than, or in addition to, first-class mail. Furthermore, Section 24104 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) expounds on the need to update the means of notification by requiring the Agency to include notification by electronic means in addition to first class mail notification, within 270 days of its enactment. MAP-21 also authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to improve the efficacy of recalls by requiring manufacturers to send additional notifications of defects or noncompliance if a second notification by the manufacturer does not result in an adequate number of motor vehicles or replacement equipment being returned for remedy.
NHTSA seeks public comment on the means, in addition to first class mail, of providing notification to owners, purchasers, and dealers, by a manufacturer of a motor vehicle or replacement equipment, that the vehicle or equipment contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety or does not comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. As a result of this ANPRM, the Agency anticipates receiving information that will aid the Agency in developing a rule implementing the notification requirements under MAP-21 and the FAST Act. The Agency anticipates that comments and information received will aid in updating the Agency's regulations.
Comments must be received on or before March 10, 2016.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Regardless of how you submit your comments, please mention the docket number of this document.
You may also call the Docket at (202) 366-9322.
For substantive issues: Jennifer Timian, Office of Defects Investigation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, at (202) 366-4000. For legal issues: Justine Casselle, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, at (202) 366-2992.
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) authorizes the Agency to amend, through rulemaking, the means of providing notification to owners, purchasers, and dealers, by a manufacturer of a motor vehicle or replacement equipment, that the vehicle or equipment contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety or does not comply with an applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard. MAP-21 also authorizes NHTSA to improve recall effectiveness by requiring manufacturers to send additional notifications of defects or noncompliance if a second notification by the manufacturer does not result in an adequate number of motor vehicles or replacement equipment being returned for remedy. Finally, MAP-21 authorizes NHTSA to permit “public notice” in addition to individualized notification. More recently, Section 24104 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) requires the Agency to amend the means of notification to owners by including electronic notification in addition to first class mail notification.
Much has changed in the ways and means by which manufacturers communicate with their customers and influence behavior since the 1970's when U.S. law first required manufacturers to notify owners in the event of a safety recall. Hard copy mail has become far less prominent in the wake of virtually instantaneous electronic message such as email and text messaging, in addition to heavy use of social media. First class mail does not inform as to whether an owner actually received the mail, let alone whether they read it and understood it, whereas electronic messaging technologies are capable of confirming whether the message at least was delivered to the address given. This ANPRM seeks comments and supporting information on the specific means and methods of notification that manufacturers use, and those that manufacturers consider are most effective, to reach their owners and purchasers as well as motivate them to have safety recalls completed. We seek to learn and obtain opinion on what methods should be required of manufacturers, as well as what methods are viable as alternatives in the event a recall campaign does not meet expectations and/or the Agency believes a public notification as contemplated by the statute is appropriate. This is all in an effort to leverage the new authorities NHTSA has been given to most efficiently and effectively improve safety recall completion rates. NHTSA will use the comments and supporting information submitted in response to this ANPRM to inform its development of a regulatory proposal that would allow notification of safety related recalls to be issued by means other than, or in addition to, first-class mail.
49 U.S.C. 30118(c) requires motor vehicle manufacturers or manufacturers of replacement equipment to “notify . . . the owners, purchasers, and dealers of vehicle or equipment as provided in section 30119(d) of this section, if the manufacturer:
1. Learns the vehicle or equipment contains a defect and decides in good faith that the defect is related to motor vehicle safety; or
2. Decides in good faith that the vehicle or equipment does not comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter.
Section 31310 of MAP-21 amended the notice provisions in 49 U.S.C. 30119(d) to allow the Secretary of Transportation, and by delegation NHTSA's Administrator, the flexibility to determine the manner by which notifications about safety recalls under 49 U.S.C. 30118 must be sent. The statute requires notification to be sent to each registered owner whose name and address is reasonably ascertainable through State records or other available sources, or the most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer. 49 U.S.C. 30119(d)(1)(A)-(B). Manufacturers are also required to notify dealers under the statute. 49 U.S.C. 30119(d)(4). The amended statutory language authorizes the Agency to engage in a rulemaking to permit notification of vehicle defects and noncompliance by means other than first-class mail, such as electronic notification. Recently, the FAST Act expounds on this authority by expressly requiring the Agency to amend, by rulemaking, the means of notification to include electronic notification.
Not only did Section 31310 address the means of providing notification, both on an individualized basis and on a more broad-based level, but it also addressed improving the efficacy of recalls through additional notifications. Previously, 49 U.S.C. 30119(e) authorized the Secretary to order a second notification if the Secretary determined that the first notification failed to result in an adequate number of motor vehicles or items of replacement equipment being returned for remedy. The statute was silent, however, as to whether additional notifications beyond a second notification could be required. Section 31310 resolves this question by amending 49 U.S.C. 30119(e), which now, under 49 U.S.C. 30119(e)(2)(A)(i), authorizes the Secretary to order additional notifications if the Secretary determines that a second notification also failed to result in an adequate number of motor vehicles or items of replacement equipment being returned for remedy.
Like the notifications addressed above, the means of additional notifications is to be in a “manner prescribed by the Secretary, by regulation.” 49 U.S.C. 30119(e)(2)(A)(i). This language anticipates the Agency will engage in rulemaking to contemplate and permit, if not order where warranted, notification of motor vehicle and equipment defects and failures to comply by means other than first-class mail.
NHTSA invites comments and information on how the agency can best leverage the new flexibilities it has been given under MAP-21 and the FAST Act to update the required means manufacturers use, whether as a first notification or as a follow-up notification, to successfully notify their owners and purchasers and urge them toward seeking the free remedies they are offered. As a general matter, the Agency requests that commenters provide as much research, evidence, or data as possible to support their comments, including cost-benefit information, as that information will be of great assistance to the Agency as it moves forward in the development of a proposed rule. The questions below are intended to focus, but not limit, the information and opinions commenters offer. Commenters are encouraged to offer any suggestions or tactics that may not have been expressly mentioned in this notice.
(1) How effective has traditional first class mail been at reaching owners? What is the estimated delivery rate for vehicle recalls where registered owner information from state agencies and the U.S. territories are available? What is the estimated delivery rate for equipment recalls where these information sources are not available? How many owners are equipment manufacturers able to notify using traditional first class mail?
(2) Other than by first class mail, in what ways can and do manufacturers notify owners about safety recalls? How do, or should, those means and methods change dependent upon the product being sold or how it was sold (
(3) What are the corresponding rates of remedy completion for these methods discussed in your response to paragraph (2) above?
(4) What sales and marketing methods and techniques could be employed for safety recall communications? Which have shown the most success in terms of owners understanding and owner recall completion, which have shown the least, and why? What information or technology is available and used to calculate these findings and how do manufacturers determine if these methods motivated the recall completion as opposed to the recall completion being motivated by other tools such as first class mailings?
(5) If manufacturers communicate with owners through email, text messaging, smart phone applications, or other electronic means, which method of communication do manufacturers find most effective at reaching owners? Which method of communication do owners prefer? Are there best practices as to when and how these communications are applied and when they are not? Are there certain demographics that seem to respond less or more to certain types of electronic communications?
(6) Are manufacturers using social media to inform owners of safety recalls and influence owners' behavior to have recalls work completed? What media is being used and which have been the most or least effective in terms of “click-throughs” or other methods for tracking owner attention? Are there certain demographics that seem to respond less or more to social media generally and/or specific types of social media? Are there best practices as to when and how these communications are applied and when they are not?
(7) Are there any legal or other limitations of which the Agency should be aware in contemplating any of the alternatives noted above or mentioned in your comments?
(8) Do manufacturers currently have access to owners' email addresses? Excluding collecting emails at point of sale, from where do manufacturers collect this information and how do they determine its “freshness” or accuracy? Should owners be required to provide an email address as part of a purchase or service transaction? Should the answer depend on how and where the product was purchased, the purchase price of the product, or some other factor? Why or why not?
(9) What contingencies do manufacturers have in place to avoid spam filters or to indicate that an email relates to a safety recall explicitly? What assurances are, or could be, put in place to confirm that an email was (a) received and (b) opened?
(10) The purpose of 49 CFR part 577 is “to ensure that notifications of defects or noncompliances adequately inform and effectively motivate owners of potentially defective or noncomplying motor vehicles or items of replacement equipment to have such vehicles or equipment inspected and, where necessary, remedied as quickly as possible.” Does notification by means other than first-class mail and email carry out this purpose? What about text alerts, social media campaigns, and other less traditional methods?
(1) Do owners read and understand the information they are currently receiving from required safety recall notices delivered via first class mail? What data or research supports your response?
(2) Is there data identifying why owners do not react to safety recall notices they receive from their manufacturers? What does that data suggest would increase owner behavior toward recall completion? Is there data indicating whether an increase in owners recall completion is more likely to occur in the presence of cash incentives, service offers, or other means? Is there data indicating otherwise?
(3) What recall information do owners want and how do they want it expressed? Are there particular words or phrases? Are their particular formats or graphics that align more with recall completion? If any focus group studies have been conducted by manufacturers or other organizations regarding owners' needs in this area, should the Agency use them to aid in assessing how to meet those needs?
(4) Should the Agency engage in its own behavior study including, but not limited to, surveys, polls, and focus groups? If so, what questions should be asked? What strategies used? How large of a survey or poll should be conducted?
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
This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order 13563. NHTSA has considered the impact of this ANPRM under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This ANPRM seeks comments and supporting information on how the Agency can best update the means of notifying owners, purchasers, and dealers of recalls in an effort to improve vehicle safety recall completion rates. Because this rulemaking only seeks comments and information to aid in the Agency's development of a proposed rule, the impact of this ANPRM is limited. Therefore, this rulemaking has been determined to be not “significant” under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures and the policies of the Office of Management and Budget.
As this Notice is an ANPRM, we are not proposing to adopt any new information collection or record keeping requirements. If, after considering the public comments received in response to this notice NHTSA decides to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking that includes information collection or record keeping requirements, that notice will discuss any new paperwork burden associated with those proposed requirements.
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Your comments will help us improve this proposed rulemaking. We invite you to provide different views on options we discuss, new approaches we have not considered, new data, descriptions of how this ANPRM may affect you, or other relevant information. We welcome your views on all aspects of this ANPRM, but request comments on specific issues throughout this document. Your comments will be most
• Explain your views and reasoning as clearly as possible.
• Provide solid evidence and data to support your views.
• If you estimate potential costs, explain how you arrived at that estimate.
• Tell us which parts of the ANPRM you support, as well as those with which you disagree.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
• Offer specific alternatives.
• Refer your comments to the specific sections of the ANPRM.
Your comments must be written in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. 49 CFR 553.21. We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
Please submit your comments to the docket electronically by logging onto
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given in the
We will consider all comments that the docket receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated in the
You may read the comments received by the docket at the address given in the
49 U.S.C. 30102, 30103, 30116-30121, 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes to implement management measures described in Amendment 28 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) (Amendment 28). If approved and implemented by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), Amendment 28 would revise the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) red snapper commercial and recreational sector allocations of the stock annual catch limits (ACLs). As a result of the revised sector allocations proposed in Amendment 28, this proposed rule would revise the red snapper commercial and recreational quotas (which are equivalent to the ACLs) and the recreational annual catch targets (ACTs). This proposed rule would also set the Federal charter vessel/headboat and private angling component quotas and ACTs based on the revised recreational sector's ACL and ACT. The purpose of this proposed rule and Amendment 28 is to reallocate the Gulf red snapper harvest consistent with the 2014 red snapper assessment update while ensuring the allowable catch and recovery benefits from the rebuilding red snapper stock are fairly and equitably allocated between the commercial and recreational sectors.
Written comments must be received on or before March 10, 2016.
You may submit comments on the amendment identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2013-0146” by either of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of Amendment 28, which includes an environmental impact statement, a fishery impact statement, a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
Peter Hood, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, telephone: 727-824-5305; email:
NMFS and the Council manage the Gulf reef fish fishery under the FMP. The Council prepared the FMP and NMFS implements the FMP through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, optimum yield from federally managed fish stocks. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that in allocating fishing privileges among fishermen, such allocation shall be fair and equitable to all such fishermen, reasonably calculated to promote conservation, and carried out in such a manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges. For stocks like red snapper, which are subject to a rebuilding plan, the Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that harvest restrictions and recovery benefits be allocated fairly and equitably among the fishing sectors. These mandates are intended to ensure fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems. The purpose of Amendment 28 is to reallocate red snapper harvest from the commercial sector to the recreational sector, consistent with the 2014 red snapper update assessment, to ensure that the allowable catch and recovery benefits from a rebuilding stock are fairly and equitably allocated between the sectors. The current commercial allocation would be reduced from 51 percent to 48.5 percent of the stock ACL and the recreational allocation would be increased from 49 percent to 51.5 percent of the stock ACL. This shift in allocation is based on the increase in the total allowable harvest attributable to the calibration of Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) catch estimates that were used in a 2014 update assessment. This proposed rule would implement the shift in allocation by modifying the commercial and recreational quotas as well as recreational component quotas consistent with the revised red snapper allocation. This proposed rule would also revise the applicable ACTs. All weights described in this proposed rule are in round (whole) weight.
The Gulf red snapper stock is currently overfished and is under a rebuilding plan projected to end in 2032. Consistent with the rebuilding plan, both the commercial and recreational quotas have been allowed to increase as the red snapper stock has recovered. The red snapper commercial and recreational ACLs are equal to the applicable quotas.
The recreational sector, which has experienced red snapper quota overages and more recently, shorter red snapper seasons, is managed through a variety of measures including separate Federal charter vessel/headboat and private angling component quotas and ACTs, recreational bag and size limits, and closed seasons. Since 2014, the recreational season length is projected each year based on the applicable ACTs, which are set 20 percent less than the applicable quotas. In addition, an overage adjustment is required if the total recreational quota is exceeded and red snapper are overfished. The red snapper commercial sector has been managed under an individual fishing quota (IFQ) program since 2007 (71 FR 67447, November 22, 2006). Although the commercial sector has also experienced quota overages in the past, since the beginning of the IFQ program, the commercial sector has not exceeded its quota.
In recent years, the Council has expressed its intent to evaluate and possibly adjust the allocation of reef fish resources between the commercial and recreational sectors. The Council has discussed NOAA's Catch Share Policy as well as its own allocation policy, and consistent with those policies, has considered changes to sector allocations for red snapper and several grouper species. Amendment 28 and this proposed rule specifically address red snapper allocation between the commercial and recreational sectors.
In 2013, the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review 31 Gulf red snapper benchmark assessment was conducted and was then reviewed by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). Based on their review, the SSC made recommendations for a revised red snapper acceptable biological catch (ABC) and overfishing limit (OFL). In 2014, a red snapper update assessment (2014 update assessment) was conducted. This assessment included more recent data and incorporated two changes to the recreational landings information: (1) Calibrated historical landings; and (2) new age (size) selectivity information for fishing years 2011-2013 for all recreational fleets. The calibrated historical landings resulted from important changes that were made to the design of the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) Access Point Angler Intercept Survey in 2013 to cover the fishing day more effectively than the original Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS). As a result, MRIP tended to produce higher estimates of red snapper landings and discards than MRFSS. Therefore, the original time series of MRFSS estimates were calibrated to the new time series of MRIP, which resulted in higher historical landings estimates for the recreational sector. Also, the update assessment included new age (size) selectivity information for fishing years 2011-2013 for all recreational fleets. This was done because recreational red snapper fishermen appeared to be selecting for larger and older fish in recent years.
The results of the update assessment were first presented to the SSC and Council at their respective January 2015 meetings via a PowerPoint presentation. The results of the update assessment were subsequently used by the SSC to make new ABC recommendations. Specifically, the SSC recommended revised red snapper ABCs of 14.30 million lb (6.49 million kg), 13.96 million lb (6.33 million kg), and 13.74 million lb (6.23 million kg), for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 fishing years, respectively. The Council held a webinar meeting and approved a framework action to set the 2015-2017 red snapper quotas consistent with the SSC's recommendations and a final rule implementing the framework action published in May 2015 (80 FR 24832, May 1, 2015).
The initial allocation for the commercial and recreational sectors was
NMFS has also made a preliminary determination that Amendment 28 is consistent with section 302(i)(6) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which requires that interested parties “have a reasonable opportunity to respond to new data or information before the Council takes final action on conservation and management measures.” The preferred allocation alternative selected by the Council is based on the increase in the total allowable harvest that was attributable to the calibration of MRFSS catch estimates to the new MRIP time series used in the 2014 update assessment. The written report of the update assessment was not available until September 2015, which is after the Council took final action on Amendment 28. However, that report merely memorializes the information that was previously presented to the Council and the public, and was used by the Council to increase the quotas in the spring of 2015. The public had an opportunity to comment on the assessment results both during the Council webinar and during the comment period on the proposed rule to implement the quota increase that was published in April 2015. The amount of increase in the total allowable harvest attributable to the MRIP recalibration was derived from projections provided by the SEFSC in March 2015 and that analysis is included in Appendix H to Amendment 28.
The preferred allocation alternative was determined by first allocating the red snapper quota that would result if MRIP catch estimates were not calibrated according to the status quo allocation percentages (51 percent commercial and 49 percent recreational) and then adding the amount of red snapper quota estimated to result from the recalibration to the recreational sector derived from the SEFSC projections. Percentages of the 2015-2017 red snapper annual quotas allocated to each sector fluctuated based on the quota and on the amounts attributed to the recalibration. Thus, the Council decided to base the proposed commercial and recreational allocation on the average red snapper allocations for the projected years. Consequently, Amendment 28 would revise the Gulf red snapper allocation to 48.5 percent of the stock ACL to the commercial sector and 51.5 percent of the stock ACL to the recreational sector.
NMFS has made a preliminary determination that this allocation is consistent with National Standard 4 and the requirements of section 303(a)(14) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. National Standard 4 requires, in relevant part, that any allocation be fair and equitable, and reasonably calculated to promote conservation. Section 303(a)(14) requires that any rebuilding plan that reduces harvest in a fishery allocate harvest restrictions and recovery benefits fairly and equitably among the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors. The allocation is fair and equitable because it addresses changes in the methodology in collecting recreational landings information that indicate that recreational harvests have been underestimated and that the stock is more productive than previously thought. Allocating the quantifiable increase in the total allowable harvest attributable to the calibration to the recreational sector is a straightforward way to help address the impacts of the changes to the survey methodology on recreational catch estimates. This shift in allocation is intended to help maintain a fair and equitable distribution of recovery benefits by recognizing that future recreational harvest will be monitored based on an improved methodology that results in higher landings estimates. This allocation is also reasonably calculated to promote conservation because the resulting commercial and recreational quotas keep the harvest under the overfishing limit, new accountability measures that have been implemented for the recreational sector are constraining harvest to the recreational quota, and analyses indicate that the shift in allocation is not expected to affect the speed of recovery to the Gulf-wide management rebuilding target.
Given the red snapper stock ACLs of 13.96 million lb (6.33 million kg) for the 2016 fishing year and 13.74 million lb (6.23 million kg) for the 2017 fishing year, under the proposed allocation the commercial quota would be 6.768 million lb (3.070 million kg) and 6.664 million lb (3.023 million kg) for the 2016 and 2017 fishing years and the recreational quota would be 7.192 million lb (3.262 million kg) and 7.076 million lb (3.210 million kg) for the 2016 and 2017 fishing years. For the recreational sector, the ACT would be set 20 percent less than the recreational quota and result in ACTs of 5.754 million lb (2.610 million kg) for 2016 and 5.661 million lb (2.568 million kg) for 2017. As described in Amendment 40 to the FMP, the recreational quota and ACT would be further divided into Federal charter vessel/headboat and private angling component quotas and ACTs based on an allocation of 42.3
NMFS has made a preliminary determination the proposed commercial and recreational quotas are consistent with the requirements of section 407(d)(2). Section 407(d)(2) must be read in context with the rest of section 407(d) as well as the Magnuson-Stevens Act as a whole. Section 407(d) was enacted in 1996 as part of the Sustainable Fisheries Act and provides that any fishery plan amendment submitted by the Council for the red snapper fishery after the date of enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries Act must contain conservation and management measures that (1) establish separate quotas for recreational fishing and commercial fishing, and (2) “ensure that such quotas reflect allocations among such sectors and do not reflect any harvests in excess of such allocations.” The Council complied with the mandate of section 407(d) in early 1997 by submitting a framework action to establish a recreational quota with a closure provision that reflected the allocation established in Amendment 1 to the FMP. A final rule implementing the recreational quota was published in September 1997 (62
There are three general provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that are particularly relevant to the allocation decision addressed by Amendment 28. These are National Standard 4 and section 303(a)(14), which address, in relevant part, the fairness and equity of allocations, and National Standard 2, which requires that conversation and management measures shall be based on best scientific information available. The adjustment to the allocation chosen by the Council is based on new scientific information which indicates that historical recreational landings were greater than previously estimated. Revised historical recreational landings were then used in the update assessment and had a quantifiable impact on the results of that assessment. As explained above, allocating this quantifiable increase in the total allowable harvest to the recreational sector is a straightforward way to help address the impacts of the changes to the data collection methodology on recreational catch estimates. To give effect to all of the provisions of the statute, NMFS has made a preliminary determination that: (1) The Council complied with the mandates of section 407(d)(2) by establishing a recreational quota in 1997 that reflected the previously established allocation; and (2) that this provision does not prohibit future action to adjust the allocations as necessary to ensure consistency with the other general requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, such as National Standard 2, National Standard 4, and section 303(a)(14). Furthermore, there is nothing that indicates any intent to exclude the allocations in the red snapper component of the reef fish fishery from these general requirements.
Because the Amendment 28 rulemaking to reallocate the red snapper stock ACL will be implemented after January 1, 2016, a framework action has been developed by the Council and submitted to NMFS that would hold back 4.9 percent of the 2016 commercial quota. The final rule for that framework action published on November 27, 2015 (80 FR 73999). The purpose of the framework action is to allow IFQ allocation to be distributed to IFQ shareholders based on the 2016 commercial quota proposed in Amendment 28. If Amendment 28 is not implemented, the held back portion of the red snapper commercial quota would be distributed back to the commercial sector.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 28, the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), as required by section 603 of the RFA, for this proposed rule. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, the objectives of, and legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. Moreover, the proposed rule is not expected to change current reporting, record-keeping, and other compliance requirements on directly affected small entities.
This proposed rule is expected to directly affect federally permitted commercial fishermen that harvest red snapper in the Gulf. Commercial harvest of red snapper in the Gulf is currently managed under an IFQ program. From 2010 through 2014, an annual average of 375 vessels landed at least 1 lb (0.45 kg) of red snapper. Each vessel generated annual average dockside revenues of approximately $102,000 (2014 dollars), of which $36,000 were from red snapper, $38,000 from other species jointly landed with red snapper, and $28,000 from other species on trips without red snapper. Vessels that caught and landed red snapper may also operate in other fisheries, the revenues of which are not known and are not reflected in these totals. It is noted that the 2014 commercial red snapper landings data are preliminary.
With respect to the proposed changes in the red snapper recreational allocation, only recreational anglers are allowed to keep red snapper harvested under the recreational quota and would be directly affected by changes in the allowable harvest. However, recreational anglers are not small entities under the RFA. Although for-hire businesses (charter vessels and headboats) operate in the recreational sector, these businesses only sell fishing services to recreational anglers and do not have harvest privileges to the red snapper recreational quota/ACT. For-hire vessels provide a platform for the opportunity to fish and not a guarantee to catch or harvest any species, though expectations of successful fishing, however defined, likely factor into the decision by anglers to purchase these services. Changing the red snapper recreational quota only defines how
NMFS has not identified any other small entities that would be expected to be directly affected by this proposed action.
The Small Business Administration has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S., including fish harvesters. A business involved in fish harvesting is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $20.5 million (North American Industry Classification System, NAICS code 114111, finfish fishing) for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
Based on revenue information, all 375 commercial vessels directly affected by the rule can be considered small entities. Thus, the proposed rule would affect a substantial number of small entities. Because all entities expected to be directly affected by the proposed rule are determined for the purpose of this analysis to be small business entities, the issue of disproportional effects on large and small entities does not arise in the present case.
The proposed action would change the commercial and recreational sector allocation of the red snapper quota from 51 percent for the commercial sector and 49 percent for the recreational sector to 48.5 percent and 51.5 percent for the commercial and recreational sectors, respectively. Relative to the current red snapper ACLs for the 2016 and 2017 fishing years, the proposed reallocation would reduce the commercial sector allocation by 0.352 million lb (0.160 million kg) in 2016 and 0.343 million lb (0.156 million kg) in 2017, or a total of 0.695 million lb (0.315 million kg) over 2 years. Based on 2013 median ex-vessel price per pound for red snapper of $4.83 when adjusted to 2014 prices ($4.75 at 2013 dollars), these commercial quota reductions would be expected to reduce total gross revenue (ex-vessel revenue, minus the IFQ program's 3 percent cost recovery fee) of vessels that commercially harvest red snapper by approximately $1.48 million (2014 dollars) in 2016 and $1.45 million in 2017 for all vessels. Over 2 years, total revenue reductions would be $2.93 million, or an average of $1.46 million per year for all vessels. This average revenue reduction may be considered to approximate the annual revenue reduction of affected commercial vessels over a number of years for which the commercial quota is held at about the same levels as in 2016 and 2017. Based on the 2010-2014 average of 375 vessels that commercially harvested red snapper, the revenue reduction per vessel would be approximately $3,893 annually. This amount is approximately 4 percent of total per vessel revenues from all species.
The following discussion describes the eight alternatives that were not selected as preferred in Amendment 28 by the Council.
The first alternative, the no action alternative, would maintain the current commercial and recreational allocation of the red snapper ACL. This alternative would maintain relatively the same economic benefits to commercial vessels but at levels higher than those afforded by the preferred alternative. The second alternative would increase the recreational sector's allocation by 3 percent, resulting in a 48 percent commercial and 52 percent recreational sector allocation. The third alternative would increase the recreational sector's allocation by 5 percent, resulting in a 46 percent commercial and 54 percent recreational sector allocation. The fourth alternative would increase the recreational sector's allocation by 10 percent, resulting in a 41 percent commercial and 59 percent recreational sector allocation. The fifth alternative would allocate to the recreational sector 75 percent of the red snapper ACL increases beyond 9.12 million lb (4.14 million kg), resulting in a 42 percent commercial and 58 percent recreational sector allocation in 2016 and 42.3 percent commercial and 57.7 percent recreational sector allocation in 2017. The sixth alternative would allocate to the recreational sector all red snapper ACL increases beyond a stock ACL of 9.12 million lb (4.14 million kg), resulting in a 33.3 percent commercial and 66.7 percent recreational sector allocation in 2016 and 33.9 percent commercial and 66.1 percent recreational sector allocation in 2017. The seventh alternative would allocate to the recreational sector 75 percent of any red snapper ACL increases beyond a stock ACL 10.0 million lb (4.54 million kg), resulting in a 43.6 percent commercial and 56.4 percent recreational sector allocation in 2016 and 43.9 percent commercial and 56.1 percent recreational sector allocation in 2017. The eighth alternative (Alternative 9 in Action 1) would allocate increases in the red snapper ACL due to the recalibration of MRIP catch estimates and to the change in size selectivity to the recreational sector, resulting in a 42.5 percent commercial and 57.5 percent recreational sector allocation in 2016 and 2017. All these other alternatives, except the no action alternative, would result in larger quota and revenue reductions for the commercial vessels that harvest red snapper. Therefore, the Council determined that the preferred alternative in Amendment 28 best meets the goal of ensuring the allowable catch and recovery benefits from the rebuilding red snapper stock are fairly and equitably allocated between the commercial and recreational sectors.
Allocation, Commercial, Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf, Recreational, Red snapper.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i)
(B) For fishing year 2016—6.768 million lb (3.070 million kg), round weight.
(C) For fishing year 2017 and subsequent fishing years—6.664 million lb (3.023 million kg), round weight.
(2) * * *
(i)
(
(
(
(B)
(
(
(
(C)
(
(
(
(q) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii)
(
(
(
(B)
(
(
(
(C)
(
(
(
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before March 25, 2016.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Mark Crace, BIS ICB Liaison, (202) 482-8093,
The link below clarifies the policies and procedures of the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) for conducting surveys to obtain information in order to perform industry studies assessing the U.S. industrial base to support the national defense pursuant to the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended.
The Department of Commerce, in coordination with the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies, conducts survey assessments of U.S. industrial base sectors deemed critical to U.S. national security. The information gathered is necessary to determine the health and competitiveness as well as the needs of these critical market segments in order to maintain a strong U.S. industrial base.
Submitted electronically.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) invites organizations to provide products and technical expertise to support and demonstrate security platforms for the Wireless Medical Infusion Pumps use case for the health care sector. This notice is the initial step for the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE) in collaborating with technology companies to address cybersecurity challenges identified under the Health Care Sector program. Participation in the use case is open to all interested organizations.
Interested parties must contact NIST to request a letter of interest template to be completed and submitted to NIST. Letters of interest will be accepted on a first come, first served basis. Collaborative activities will commence as soon as enough completed and signed letters of interest have been returned to address all the necessary components and capabilities, but no earlier than February 24, 2016. When the use case has been completed, NIST will post a notice on the NCCoE Health Care Sector program Web site at
The NCCoE is located at 9700 Great Seneca Highway, Rockville, MD 20850. Letters of interest must be submitted to
Gavin O'Brien via email at
Interested parties should contact NIST using the information provided in the
The goal of this use case is to help health care providers secure their medical devices on an enterprise network, with a specific focus on wireless infusion pumps.
Clinicians and patients rely on infusion pumps for safe and accurate administration of fluids and medications. However, the FDA has identified problems that can compromise the safe use of external infusion pumps. These issues can lead to over or under-infusion, missed treatments, or delayed therapy.
The publication of the use case is merely the beginning of a process that will identify research participants and components of a laboratory environment to identify, evaluate and test relevant security tools and controls. The approach may include: risk assessment and analysis, logical design, build development, test & evaluation and security control mapping. The output of the process will be the publication of a multi-part Practice Guide to assist the community in evaluating the security environment surrounding their infusion pumps deployed in a clinical setting.
A detailed description of the Wireless Medical Infusion Pumps use case is available at
1. Access for all participants' project teams to component interfaces and the organization's experts necessary to make functional connections among security platform components.
2. Support for development and demonstration of the Wireless Medical Infusion Pump capability in NCCoE facilities which will be conducted in a manner consistent with Federal requirements (
Additional details about the Wireless Medical Infusion Pumps use case for the Health care sector are available at
Under the terms of the consortium CRADA, NIST will support development of interfaces among participants' products by providing IT infrastructure, laboratory facilities, office facilities, collaboration facilities, and staff support to component composition, security platform documentation, and demonstration activities.
The dates of the demonstration of the Wireless Medical Infusion Pump capability will be announced on the NCCoE Web site at least two weeks in advance at
For additional information on the NCCoE governance, business processes, and NCCoE operational structure, visit the NCCoE Web site
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for exempted fishing permit.
This notice announces receipt of an exempted fishing permit (EFP) application from the Alaska Seafood Cooperative (AKSC) and co-applicants. If granted, this EFP would allow the applicants to remove halibut from a trawl codend on the deck, and release those fish back to the water in a timely manner to increase survivability. These halibut would be sampled by NMFS-trained observers for length and physical condition using standard International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) halibut mortality assessment methods. The objectives of the EFP application are to (1) test methods for sorting halibut on deck for suitability as an allowable fish handling mode for the non-pollock catcher/processor trawl fisheries (Amendment 80, community development quota (CDQ), and trawl limited access) in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands under an eventual regulated program; (2) simplify and improve on elements that worked under a 2015 deck sorting EFP project; and (3) address challenges and issues that arose in the 2015 EFP. This experiment has the potential to promote the objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Northern Pacific Halibut Act.
Comments on this EFP application must be submitted to NMFS on or before February 9, 2016. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will consider the application at its meeting from February 1, 2016, through February 9, 2016, in Portland, OR.
The Council meeting will be held at the Benson Hotel, 309 SW Broadway, Portland, OR 97205. The agenda for the Council meeting is available at
•
•
Electronic copies of the EFP application and the basis for a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act are available from the Alaska Region, NMFS Web site at
The June 2014 IPHC Report is available from the Council Web site at
Julie Scheurer, 907-586-7111.
NMFS manages the domestic groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP), which the Council prepared
The IPHC and NMFS manage fishing for Pacific halibut (
Regulations implemented by the IPHC allow Pacific halibut to be commercially harvested by the directed North Pacific longline fishery. Halibut is a prohibited species in the groundfish fishery, requiring immediate return to the sea with a minimum of injury. Halibut caught incidentally by catcher/processors in the nonpelagic trawl groundfish fisheries must be weighed on a NMFS-approved scale, sampled by observers, and returned to the ocean as soon as possible. The Council establishes annual maximum halibut bycatch allowances and seasonal apportionments adjusted by an estimated halibut discard mortality rate (DMR) for groundfish fisheries. The DMRs are based on the best information available, including information contained in the annual Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation report, available at
Directed fishing in a groundfish fishery closes when the halibut mortality apportionment for the fishery is reached, even if the target species catch is less than the seasonal or annual quota for the directed fishery. In the case of the Bering Sea flatfish fishery, seasons have been closed before fishery quotas have been reached to prevent the fishery from exceeding the halibut mortality apportionment.
With the implementation of Amendment 80 to the FMP on September 14, 2007 (72 FR 52668), halibut mortality apportionments were established for the Amendment 80 sector and for Amendment 80 cooperatives. Amendment 80 is a catch share program that allocates several BSAI non-pollock trawl groundfish fisheries (including the flatfish fishery) among fishing sectors, and facilitates the formation of harvesting cooperatives in the non-American Fisheries Act trawl catcher/processor sector. Though halibut mortality apportionments provide Amendment 80 cooperatives more flexibility to use available mortality, halibut mortality continues to constrain fishing in some Amendment 80 fisheries. Therefore, this sector is actively exploring ways to continue to reduce halibut mortality.
Before incidentally caught halibut are returned to the sea, at-sea observers must estimate halibut and groundfish catch amounts. Regulations in 50 CFR part 679 assure that observer estimates of halibut and groundfish catch are credible and accurate, and that potential bias is minimized. For example, NMFS requires that all catch be made available for sampling by an observer; prohibits tampering with observer samples; prohibits removal of halibut from a codend, bin, or conveyance system prior to being observed and counted by an at-sea observer; and prohibits fish (including halibut) from remaining on deck unless an observer is present.
In 2009 and 2012, halibut mortality experiments were conducted by members of the Amendment 80 sector under EFP 09-02 (74 FR 12113, March 23, 2009) and EFP 12-01 (76 FR 70972, November 16, 2011). By regulation, all catch including halibut is moved across a flow scale below deck before the halibut is returned to the sea. Halibut mortality increases with increased handling and time out of water. Under the 2009 and 2012 EFPs, experimental methods for sorting catch on a vessel's deck allowed halibut to be returned to the sea in less time, with less handling relative to halibut routed below deck and over the flow scale. The halibut mortality during flatfish fishing under the 2009 and 2012 EFPs was estimated to be approximately 17 metric tons (mt) and 10.8 mt, respectively, less than the amounts estimated from the DMR for this fishery. The reduced halibut mortality under the 2009 and 2012 EFPs is attributed to the improved condition of halibut through reduced handling and time out of water.
In 2015, test fishing under EFP 2015-02 (80 FR 3222, January 22, 2015) expanded on results of the 2009 and 2012 EFPs to explore the feasibility of deck sorting halibut in additional fisheries, on more vessels, and during a longer interval of time during the fishing season. The primary objective was to reduce halibut mortality in the Amendment 80 groundfish fisheries in 2015. Fishing under the EFP began in May and continued through November. The most prominent result from the 2015 EFP was that substantial halibut mortality savings were achieved from deck sorting on catcher/processors operating in non-pollock Bering Sea fisheries. The preliminary estimate of halibut savings under the 2015 EFP is 131 mt. For the nine vessels that participated in the 2015 EFP, all but one achieved mortality rates in the range of 41 percent to 53 percent, compared to the standard mortality rate of 80 percent in the Bering Sea flatfish fisheries without deck sorting (average across target fisheries of interest for the 2015 EFP).
Reducing halibut mortality is a high priority for the IPHC, the Council, and NMFS. In June 2014, the Council received a report from the IPHC about the impact of halibut bycatch in the groundfish fisheries on the short- and long-term yields in the directed halibut fishery. The IPHC report (see
In June 2015, the Council took final action to reduce halibut PSC mortality limits in the BSAI groundfish fisheries overall from 4,426 mt to 3,515 mt, a 21 percent reduction. The Council took final action to reduce the halibut PSC mortality limit for the Amendment 80 sector by 25 percent, from 2,325 mt to 1,745 mt per year. NMFS published a proposed rule to implement Amendment 111 and these PSC reductions to the FMP for groundfish of the BSAI on November 16, 2015 (80 FR 71650).
On December 16, 2015, the AKSC, an Amendment 80 cooperative, submitted an application for an EFP for 2016 to build on the information collected in prior deck sorting EFPs and further reduce halibut mortality in the Amendment 80, CDQ, and trawl limited access sectors. The objectives of the proposed 2016 EFP are to test modifications to the procedures and approaches in the 2015 EFP that (1) move substantively towards implementation of deck sorting as an allowable fish handling mode for the non-pollock catcher-processor trawl fisheries in the BSAI; (2) simplify and improve on elements that worked from the 2015 EFP; and (3) address challenges and issues that arose in the 2015 EFP. Consistent with 2015 methods, the EFP would allow crew on board catcher/processors to sort halibut removed from a codend on the deck of the vessel. Those sorted halibut could be released back to the water after the halibut are measured for length and tested for physical condition using standard IPHC viability assessment methods.
The applicants propose to test several new aspects that would inform a future, operationalized deck sorting process in Federal regulations:
(1) Observers instead of sea samplers would be used to track and monitor halibut sorted on deck;
(2) A single set of procedures would be used to account for halibut on EFP trips,
(3) Concepts for halibut holding tanks on deck would be tested.
The applicant proposes to begin EFP fishing in May 2016 and end on December 31, 2016. The EFP would allow halibut to be sorted, sampled, and released prior to being weighed on a flow scale, to achieve the experimental objectives and reduce halibut mortality. This EFP application requests an amount of halibut PSC mortality for vessels engaged in experimental fishing not to exceed the 2016 halibut PSC mortality apportionments set out in Table 14 of the Final 2015 and 2016 Harvest Specifications (available at
Participating vessels would procure and use three NMFS-trained at-sea observers during EFP trips. Observers would perform all of their duties on deck and in the factory during 8-hour shifts, leaving up to four hours per observer per day for error checking and the additional work to enter data for halibut sorted on deck. Work shifts would not exceed 12 hours per observer. Three observers would therefore work overlapping 12-hour shifts for continuous coverage to track the amount of halibut mortality for fish sorted on deck to determine halibut mortality amounts from EFP-permitted vessels.
Using observers instead of sea samplers as in the 2015 EFP would resolve some of the issues that emerged in 2015 regarding equipment usage, long shifts with few breaks, training, lines of authority, and timely access to the data. Observers would be able to enter and extrapolate data via the NMFS Catch Accounting System so PSC usage by EFP participants would be reported and tracked in near real-time along with non-EFP participants' usage and would accrue against the sectors' halibut PSC mortality apportionments. If the halibut mortality apportionment is reached, the EFP permit holder would notify NMFS and end EFP fishing. As required by existing regulations, Amendment 80 fishing will also cease when the annual halibut mortality apportionment is reached.
The applicants propose a modified factory sampling procedure relative to the one used in 2015. Under the 2015 EFP, halibut that were not sorted on deck were collected by the crew in the factory under the supervision of a sea sampler. The sea sampler measured all halibut collected in the factory, and a mortality rate of 90 percent was used to determine total halibut mortality in the factory. The observers did not account for halibut mortality on EFP hauls in 2015, rather the EFP participants and sea samplers determined and tracked halibut mortality for EFP hauls.
In 2016, halibut that are not sorted on deck would flow to the factory and would be available to the observer for sampling. The on-duty observer would collect species composition samples per standard protocols to estimate the proportion of halibut in the haul relative to other species. The proportion of halibut estimated to be in the haul would be extrapolated to the total haul catch weight to estimate the total amount of halibut not sorted on deck. A mortality rate of 90 percent would be applied to the amount of halibut in the factory to estimate the halibut mortality from the factory. The resulting factory halibut mortality amount would be combined with the amount of halibut mortality estimated in the deck-sorted portion of the haul to estimate the total halibut mortality for each EFP haul.
The following example is provided as an illustration for how total halibut mortality would be calculated for a haul under the 2016 EFP. Assume a vessel catches 400 kilograms (kg) of halibut in one haul. Assume 92 percent of the halibut is removed on deck and the vessel achieves a halibut discard mortality of 50 percent by releasing these fish from deck. In this example, the amount of halibut mortality on deck is 184 kg. A halibut mortality of 90 percent is applied to the 32 kg of halibut that are sampled in the factory, resulting in a halibut mortality of 28.8 kg in the factory. In this example, the total halibut mortality for the haul is 212.8 kg.
The halibut mortality data collected by observers would be available to NMFS in near-real time for inseason management in 2016. In addition to the observer samples, under the 2016 EFP, vessel crew would conduct a census of halibut in the factory, after they have been available to the observer for sampling, to compare observer estimates of total halibut and census results.
Under the 2015 EFP, vessels could switch between EFP fishing and regular commercial fishing during a single fishing trip. In 2016, EFP participants would operate under a single catch handling and accounting method for all hauls on a fishing trip designated as an EFP trip. This modification is expected to reduce potential confusion aboard the vessel and improve efficiency for catch accounting and scientific personnel. Operators of participating vessels would still have a way to opt out of sorting on deck when it is potentially unsafe or when the vessel has located a fishing area where halibut bycatch is very low.
The applicants propose to test the concept of holding deck-sorted halibut in tanks with recirculating sea water on the deck of the vessel to minimize post-release depredation by orcas and to improve halibut viability if observer sampling cannot keep pace with the deck-sorting by crew. During EFP fishing in 2015, some participants noted
This proposed action would exempt participating catcher/processors from selected 50 CFR part 679 prohibitions, and monitoring and observer requirements. Should the Regional Administrator issue a permit based on this EFP application, the conditions of the permit will be designed to minimize halibut mortality and any potential for biasing estimates of groundfish and halibut mortality. Vessels participating in EFP fishing may be exempt from, at minimum, the following regulations:
1. the prohibition against interfering with or biasing the sampling procedure employed by an observer including physical, mechanical, or other sorting or discarding of catch before sampling, at § 679.7(g)(2);
2. the requirements to weigh all catch by an Amendment 80 vessel on a NMFS-approved scale at § 679.93(c)(1) and by all vessels at § 679.28(b); and
3. the requirement to return all prohibited species, or parts thereof, to the sea immediately, with a minimum of injury, regardless of its condition at § 679.21(b)(2)(ii).
In 2017, the AKSC would be required to submit to NMFS a report of the EFP results after EFP experimental fishing has ended in 2016. The report would include a comparison of halibut mortality from halibut sampled during the EFP and an estimate of halibut mortality under standard IPHC halibut mortality rates for those target fisheries. Additionally, the report should compare the estimated amount of halibut sampled by observers in the factory with the census of halibut collected in the factory by vessel crew to evaluate the precision and associated variance of sampled-based extrapolations and to inform a decision of the best way to account for factory halibut in a regulated program. Finally, the report should evaluate the effectiveness of using sea water holding tanks on deck to improve the viability and minimize depredation by orcas on deck-sorted halibut.
Under the EFP, participants would be limited to their groundfish allocations under the 2016 harvest specifications. The amount of halibut mortality applied to the EFP activities would be subject to review and approval by NMFS.
This EFP would be valid upon issuance in 2016 until either the end of 2016 or when the annual halibut mortality apportionment is reached in areas of the BSAI open to directed fishing by the various sectors. EFP-authorized fishing activities would not be expected to change the nature or duration of the groundfish fishery, gear used, or the amount or species of fish caught by the participants.
The fieldwork that would be conducted under this EFP is not expected to have a significant impact on the human environment as detailed in the categorical exclusion prepared for this action (see
In accordance with § 679.6, NMFS has determined that the application warrants further consideration and has forwarded the application to the Council to initiate consultation. The Council is scheduled to consider the EFP application during its February 2016 meeting, which will be held at the Benson Hotel in Portland, OR. The EFP application will also be provided to the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee for review at the February Council meeting. The applicant has been invited to appear in support of the application.
Interested persons may comment on the application at the February 2016 Council meeting during public testimony or until February 9, 2016. Information regarding the meeting is available at the Council's Web site at
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability of draft environmental assessment; request for comments.
NMFS proposes to issue a Special Coral Reef Ecosystem Fishing Permit that would authorize Kampachi Farms, LLC, to stock, culture, and harvest fish that are part of the coral reef ecosystem management unit in a submerged net pen moored in Federal waters about 5.5 nm (10.2 km) off the west coast of the Island of Hawaii. This notice informs the public that NMFS prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) of the potential impacts of the proposed activity.
NMFS must receive comments on the draft EA by February 16, 2016.
You may submit comments on the draft EA, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0137, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Melanie Brown, Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS PIR, 808-725-5171.
NMFS proposes to issue a Special Coral Reef Ecosystem Fishing Permit to Kampachi Farms, LLC (applicant), consistent with Federal regulations for Hawaii coral reef ecosystem fisheries management at Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 665.224, and the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Hawaiian Archipelago (FEP). NMFS would authorize the applicant to stock, culture, and harvest kampachi, a native coral reef ecosystem management unit fish (
The applicant would use a floating, submerged, cylindrical net pen with an area of 1,083 m
The proposed activity requires a special permit because the FEP and Federal regulations do not identify the Velella Delta Array as an approved gear type to fish for coral reef ecosystem management unit species. If NMFS authorizes the activity, the applicant would use the Velella Delta Array to grow and harvest 30,000 kampachi from fingerlings in two 15,000-fish cohorts. The applicant would stock the net pen with first-generation offspring from wild fish.
NMFS anticipates that the low density of cultured fish, the procedures proposed to minimize feed waste, and the flushing by ocean currents, would minimally affect water quality. The net materials resist both biofouling and leaching. The net pen design includes a single mesh entry panel on the top that Kampachi Farms staff would use only after raising the pen to the surface. The project design and operating procedures would prevent fish escapes.
The applicant would equip the array's float ring and feed vessel with GPS navigation units to provide constant location information on the array, simplifying retrieval operations if the array were to break free from the mooring. In the unlikely case of the array separating from the mooring, the applicant would notify the U.S. Coast Guard and immediately recover any lost gear. In addition to requiring the applicant to monitor the array, NMFS would require the applicant to avoid interactions with protected species (
NMFS expects that the array would aggregate pelagic fish, and fishermen would be able to continue fishing near the array. The small size of the array would not adversely affect fish catches in the ocean west of the Island of Hawaii.
The applicant must also obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to use the mooring, and NMFS prepared the draft EA in collaboration with the USACE. When finalized, NMFS will use the EA to determine whether or not the activity would be a major Federal action with the potential for significant environmental impacts. If NMFS determines that the proposed activity would have significant impacts, we would need to prepare an environmental impact statement. The EA will also inform our decision whether or not to issue the permit. Additionally, the EA will inform the USACE preparation of their own environmental evaluations in accordance with USACE procedures for the mooring permit.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Health Board will take place.
Inn by the Sea Hotel, Wind and Sea Room, 7830 Fay Avenue, La Jolla, California 92037 (Pre-meeting registration required; see guidance in
The Executive Director of the Defense Health Board is Ms. Christine Bader, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, Virginia 22042, (703) 681-6653, Fax: (703) 681-9539,
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150, and in accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Additional information, including the agenda and electronic registration, is available at the DHB Web site,
Individuals desiring to provide comments to the DHB may do so by submitting a written statement to the DHB Designated Federal Officer (DFO) (see
If the written statement is not received at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting, the DFO may choose to postpone consideration of the statement until the next open meeting.
The DFO will review all timely submissions with the DHB President and ensure they are provided to members of the DHB before the meeting that is subject to this notice. After reviewing the written comments, the President and the DFO may choose to invite the submitter to orally present their issue during an open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. The DFO, in consultation with the DHB President, may allot time for members of the public to present their issues for review and discussion by the Defense Health Board.
Department of Energy.
Notice of availability; public meeting.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces the availability of its draft environmental assessment (EA) (DOE/EA-1977) evaluating the potential environmental impacts from a proposed action to receive, store, process and disposition spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from the Federal Republic of Germany at DOE's Savannah River Site (SRS) (Draft German Spent Nuclear Fuel EA).
The 45-day public comment period extends from the date of publication of this notice in the
DOE will hold a public meeting to receive comments on the Draft Spent Nuclear Fuel from Germany EA. The meeting will be held on:
• February 4, 2016, (7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.) at the North Augusta Community Center, 495 Brookside Drive, North Augusta, South Carolina 29841.
This Draft Spent Nuclear Fuel from Germany EA is available at the following sites:
To request a print copy of the Draft Spent Nuclear Fuel from Germany EA please submit your request to Tracy Williams, NEPA Compliance Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box B, Aiken, South Carolina 29802; or by telephone at (803) 952-8278.
DOE invites Federal agencies, state and local governments, Native American tribes, industry, other organizations, and members of the general public to submit comments on DOE's Draft Spent Nuclear Fuel from Germany EA. Please direct written comments on the Draft Spent Nuclear Fuel from Germany EA to Tracy Williams, NEPA Compliance Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box B, Aiken, South Carolina 29802.
Comments on the Draft Spent Nuclear Fuel from Germany EA may also be submitted by email to
To request further information on SRS spent nuclear fuel disposition activities or background information on the proposed project, please contact Tracy Williams at the address as listed above.
For general information concerning DOE's NEPA process, contact: Ms. Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GG-54), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585: (202) 586-4600, or leave a message toll-free, at (800) 472-2756; fax (202) 586-7031; or send an email to
This Draft Spent Nuclear Fuel from Germany EA is available on the DOE NEPA Web site at
DOE has prepared the Draft Spent Nuclear Fuel from Germany EA in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality and DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 and 10
The United States provided the HEU to Germany between 1965 and 1988. The spent fuel was irradiated at the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Versuchsreaktor (AVR) reactor, which operated from 1967 to 1988, and the Thorium High Temperature Reactor (THTR)-300, which operated from 1983 to 1989. These reactors operated as part of Germany's research and development program for pebble bed, high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor technology.
In a February 2012 letter, the State Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of the Federal Republic of Germany requested DOE's Under Secretary for Nuclear Security to consider accepting the SNF, and collaboration on the request was initiated in May 2012. In April 2014, DOE, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Ministry for Innovation, Science and Research of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia on behalf of the North Rhine-Westphalian State Government, Germany, signed a Statement of Intent
DOE's purpose and need for the receipt, storage, processing, and disposition of the SNF from Germany is to support the U.S. policy objective to reduce, and eventually to eliminate, HEU from civil commerce. This action would further the U.S. HEU minimization objective by returning U.S.-origin HEU from Germany to the United States for safe storage and disposition in a form no longer usable for an improvised nuclear device, a radiological dispersal device, or other radiological exposure device.
In the Draft Spent Nuclear Fuel from Germany EA, DOE considers a No Action Alternative as required under NEPA, and two action alternatives for acceptance and disposition of the graphite-based SNF currently stored in Germany. Under the No Action Alternative, the SNF would not be transported to the United States for management and disposition.
The two action alternatives differ in processing technology and location at SRS where the processing would occur. Under both of the proposed action alternatives, the SNF would be transported from Germany and processed at SRS for final disposition as a proliferation-resistant waste form. The proposed action alternatives are identified by the respective SRS processing location. The H-Area Alternative (so named because most activities would involve H-Area facilities) includes three processing options (Vitrification Option, Low-Enriched Uranium Waste Option, and Low-Enriched Uranium/Thorium Waste Option) that use H-Canyon to differing extents; the L-Area Alternative (so named because the alternative would involve mostly L-Area facilities) would implement melt and dilute processing in L-Area. Existing and planned SRS infrastructure and facilities would be used to process the spent nuclear fuel from Germany.
The shipping campaign from Germany would involve about 30 shipments over approximately a 3.5-year period to transport 455 CASTOR
Processing steps would involve separating the HEU kernels from their graphite matrix, then processing the kernels through either H-Canyon and the SRS Liquid Nuclear Waste Facilities, or through a new melt and dilute process that would be installed in L-Area. The HEU kernels are embedded in a graphite (carbon) matrix which must be removed for the HEU kernels to be processed. Two methods for removing the graphite surrounding the fuel kernels (referred to as carbon digestion), a molten salt digestion process and a vapor digestion process, are evaluated in this EA.
Under the H-Area alternative, three options for dissolving the kernels after carbon digestion are evaluated:
• The vitrification option provides for dissolution of the kernels in H-Canyon with direct transfer of the entire dissolver solution to the existing Liquid Nuclear Waste Facilities. Under this option, the high-activity fraction of the dissolver solution would be dispositioned as vitrified high-level radioactive waste and the low-activity fraction as low-level radioactive waste saltstone.
• The low-enriched uranium waste option provides for dissolution of the kernels in H-Canyon followed by solvent extraction in H-Canyon to separate the uranium. The resulting uranium solution would be down blended and grouted (
• The low-enriched uranium/thorium waste option provides for dissolution of the kernels in H-Canyon followed by solvent extraction in H-Canyon for separation of the uranium and thorium. The resulting uranium/thorium solution would be down blended and grouted to meet acceptance criteria for disposal as low-level radioactive waste. The remainder of the dissolver solution would be processed through the Liquid Nuclear Waste Facilities into high- and low-level radioactive waste as indicated for the vitrification option.
Under the L-Area Alternative, the kernels would be down-blended and converted to a uranium-aluminum alloy in a melt and dilute process in L-Area.
All comments on the Draft Spent Nuclear Fuel from Germany EA received during the public comment period will be considered and addressed in the Final Spent Nuclear Fuel from Germany EA. DOE will address comments submitted after the close of the public comment period on the Draft EA to the extent practicable. Following the public comment period, and based on the EA and consideration of all comments received, DOE will either issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or announce its intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). If DOE determines that a FONSI is appropriate, both the Final EA and FONSI will be made available to the public.
If DOE determines that an EIS is needed, either during preparation of the Final Spent Nuclear Fuel from Germany EA or after completing the EA, DOE would issue in the
Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis, Secretariat, Quadrennial Energy Review Task Force, Department of Energy.
Notice of public meeting.
At the direction of the President, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or Department), as the Secretariat for the Quadrennial Energy Review Task Force (QER Task Force), will convene a public meeting to introduce the topic of the second installment of the Quadrennial Energy Review, an integrated study of the U.S. electricity system from generation through end use. A mixture of panel discussions and a public comment period will frame multi-stakeholder discourse around deliberative analytical questions relating to the intersection of electricity and its role in promoting economic competitiveness, energy security, and environmental responsibility.
The public meeting will be held on February 4, 2016, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time. Written comments are welcome, especially following the public meeting, and should be submitted within 60 days of the meeting.
The meeting will be held at the United States Capitol Visitor Center Congressional Auditorium, in Washington, DC.
Starting on February 4, 2016, you may submit written comments online at
John Richards, EPSA-60, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121.
On January 9, 2014, President Obama issued a
The Quadrennial Energy Review process itself involves robust engagement of federal agencies and outside stakeholders, and further enables the federal government to translate policy goals into a set of analytically based, integrated actions for proposed investments over a four year planning horizon. Unlike traditional federal Quadrennial Review processes, the QER is conducted in a multi-year installment series to allow for more focused analysis on particular sub-sectors of the energy system. The initial focus for the Quadrennial Energy Review was our Nation's transmission, storage and distribution infrastructures that link energy supplies to intermediate and end users, because these capital-intensive infrastructures tend to set supply and end use patterns, investments and practices in place for decades. On April 21, 2015, the Quadrennial Energy Review Task Force released its first Quadrennial Energy Review installment report entitled, “Energy Transmission, Storage, and Distribution Infrastructure”. Among the issues highlighted by the analysis in the first installment of the QER were the growing dependencies of all critical infrastructures and economic sectors on electricity, as well as, the increasing interdependence of the various energy subsectors. In response to these findings, and to provide an appropriate consideration of an energy sector undergoing significant technological and regulatory change, the second installment of the QER will conduct a comprehensive review of the nation's electricity system, from generation to end use, including a more comprehensive look at electricity transmission, storage, and distribution infrastructure covered in installment one. The electricity system encompasses not just physical structures, but also a range of actors and institutions. Under this broad framing, the second installment intends to consider the roles and activities of all relevant actors, industries, and institutions integral to continuing to supply reliable and affordable electricity at a time of dramatic change in technology development. Issues to be considered in QER analyses include fuel choices, distributed and centralized generation, physical and cyber vulnerabilities, federal, state, and local policy direction, expectations of residential and commercial consumers, and a review of existing and evolving business models for a range of entities throughout the system.
Significant changes will be required to meet the transformational opportunities and challenges posed by our evolving electricity system. The Administration is seeking public input on key questions relating to possible federal actions that would address the challenges and take full advantage of the opportunities of this changing system to meet the Nation's objectives of reliable, affordable and clean electricity. Over the course of 2016, the Secretariat for the Quadrennial Energy Review Task Force will hold a series of public meetings to discuss and receive comments on the issues outlined above, and well as, others, as they relate to the second installment of the Quadrennial Energy Review.
The Department of Energy has a broad role in energy policy development and the largest role in implementing the Federal Government's energy research and development portfolio. Many other executive departments and agencies also play key roles in developing and implementing policies governing energy resources and consumption, as well as, associated environmental impacts. In addition, non-Federal actors are crucial contributors to energy policies. Because most energy and related infrastructure is owned by private entities, investment by and engagement of, input from the private sector is necessary to develop and implement effective policies. State and local policies, the views of non-governmental, environmental, faith-based, labor, and other social organizations, and contributions from the academic and non-profit sectors are also critical to the development and implementation of effective Federal energy policies.
The interagency Quadrennial Energy Review Task Force, which includes members from all relevant executive departments and agencies, will develop an integrated review of energy policy that integrates all of these perspectives. It will build on the foundation provided in the Administration's
On February 4, 2016, the DOE will hold a public meeting in Washington, DC on electricity from generation through end use. The meeting will feature facilitated panel discussions, followed by an open microphone session. People who would like to speak during the open microphone session at the public meeting should come prepared to speak for no more than five minutes and will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis, according to the order in which they register to speak on a sign-in sheet available at the meeting location, on the morning of the meeting.
In advance of the meeting, DOE anticipates making publicly available a briefing memorandum providing useful background information regarding the topics under discussion at the meeting. DOE will post this memorandum on its Web site:
Do not submit information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through the DOE Web site cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section, below.
If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No tele-facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English, and are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) a description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest. It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
Specific dates and locations will be announced in future
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a combined meeting of the Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Committee and Waste Management Committee of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New Mexico (known locally as the Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board [NNMCAB]). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, February 10, 2016, 2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
NNMCAB Office, 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506.
Menice Santistevan, Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board, 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or Email:
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, February 10, 2016, 6:00 p.m.
Department of Energy Information Center, Office of Science and Technical Information, 1 Science.gov Way, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830.
Melyssa P. Noe, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 241-3315; Fax (865) 576-0956 or email:
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office invites nominations of scientific experts from a diverse range of disciplines to be considered for appointment to the SAB's 2016-2018 Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards (STAA) Committee described in this notice.
Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than February 16, 2016.
For further information about the SAB's STAA Committee membership appointment process and schedule, please contact Mr. Edward Hanlon, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), SAB Staff Office, by telephone/voice mail at (202) 564-2134; by fax at (202) 565-2098 or via email at
General information concerning the EPA SAB can be found at the EPA SAB Web site at
The EPA established the STAA in 1980 to recognize Agency scientists and engineers who published their work in the peer-reviewed literature. The STAA Program is an agency-wide competition to promote and recognize scientific and technological achievements by EPA employees. The STAA program is administered and managed by the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). Each year the SAB has been asked to review the EPA's STAA nominations and make recommendations to the Administrator for monetary awards. The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts to serve on the SAB 2016-2018 STAA Committee, which operates under the auspices of the SAB.
EPA's SAB Staff Office requests contact information about the person making the nomination; contact information about the nominee; the disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee; the nominee's resume or curriculum vitae; sources of recent grant and/or contract support; and a biographical sketch of the nominee indicating current position, educational background, research activities, and recent service on other national advisory committees or national professional organizations.
Persons having questions about the nomination procedures, or who are unable to submit nominations through the SAB Web site, should contact Mr. Edward Hanlon as indicated above in this notice. Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than February 16, 2016. EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an effort to obtain nominations of diverse candidates, EPA encourages nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups.
The EPA SAB Staff Office will acknowledge receipt of nominations. The names and biosketches of qualified nominees identified by respondents to this
For the EPA SAB Staff Office a balanced review committee includes candidates who possess the necessary domains of knowledge, the relevant scientific perspectives (which, among other factors, can be influenced by work history and affiliation), and the collective breadth of experience to adequately address the charge. The SAB Staff Office will consider public comments on the List of Candidates, information provided by the candidates themselves, and background information independently gathered by the SAB Staff Office. Selection criteria to be used for committee membership include: (a) Scientific and/or technical expertise, knowledge, and experience (primary factors); (b) availability and willingness to serve; (c) absence of financial conflicts of interest; (d) absence of an appearance of a loss of impartiality; (e) skills working in committees, subcommittees and advisory committees; and, (f) for the committee as a whole, diversity of expertise and scientific points of view.
The SAB Staff Office's evaluation of an absence of financial conflicts of interest will include a review of the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form allows government officials to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between a person's public responsibilities (which include membership on an EPA federal advisory committee) and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a loss of impartiality, as defined by federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded from the following URL address
The approved policy under which the EPA SAB Office selects members for subcommittees and review panels is described in the following document,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received a specific exemption request from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to use the pesticide ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA) (CAS No. 643-79-8) to treat the internal active thermal control system (IATCS) coolant of the International Space Station, comprised of the United States (U.S.) Laboratory Module, the Japanese Experiment Module, the Columbus, and Node 3, to control aerobic/microaerophilic water bacteria. The applicant proposes the use of a chemical which is not currently registered by EPA. EPA is soliciting public comment before making the decision whether or not to grant the exemption.
Comments must be received on or before February 9, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0818, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
3.
Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the EPA Administrator, a Federal or state agency may be exempted from any provision of FIFRA if the EPA Administrator determines that emergency conditions exist which require the exemption. NASA has requested the EPA Administrator to issue a specific exemption for the use of OPA in the International Space Station IATCS coolant to control aerobic/microaerophilic water bacteria. Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of this request.
As part of this request, the applicant asserts that it has considered the registered biocides and has concluded that OPA is the most effective biocide which meets the requisite criteria including: The need for safe, non-intrusive implementation and operation in a functioning system; the ability to control existing planktonic and biofilm residing micro-organisms; a negligible impact on system-wetted materials of construction; and a negligible reactivity with existing coolant additives. The International Space Station would not have an adequate long-term solution for controlling the micro-organisms in the coolant systems without the use of OPA.
The OPA is immobilized onto a porous resin material. Delivery into the coolant system is through connecting a stainless steel canister which contains the OPA-impregnated resin into the coolant system loop, using flexible hose and quick disconnects. As the coolant fluid flows through the canister, the OPA effectively elutes from the resin material into the coolant fluid.
The applicant proposes to make one application to obtain a concentration of up to 500 mg/L OPA, to the loops of the IATCS coolant system of the International Space Station comprised of the U.S. Laboratory Module (coolant system volume of 272 L), the Japanese Experiment Module (coolant system volume of 213 L), the Columbus (coolant system volume of 150 L), and Node 3 (coolant system volume of 194 L) for a total volume of 829 L. The maximum amount potentially used under the emergency exemption totals 1,964 cm
This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the application itself. The regulations governing FIFRA section 18 require publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a specific exemption proposing use of an active ingredient which has not been registered by EPA. The notice provides an opportunity for public comment on the application.
The Agency, will review and consider all comments received during the comment period in determining whether to issue the specific exemption requested by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
7 U.S.C. 136
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before February 24, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page <
Specifically, we require providers to disclose to subscribers the following information: (1) Availability of backup power sources; (2) service limitations with and without backup power during a power outage; (3) purchase and replacement options; (4) expected backup power duration; (5) proper usage and storage conditions for the backup power source; (6) subscriber backup power self-testing and monitoring instructions; and (7) backup power warranty details, if any. Each element of this information must be given to subscribers both at the point of sale and annually thereafter, as described in the rule.
The disclosure requirements are intended to equip subscribers with necessary information to purchase and maintain a source of backup power to enhance their ability to maintain access to reliable 911 service from their homes.
We permit providers to convey both the initial and annual disclosures and information described above by any means reasonably calculated to reach the individual subscriber. For example, a provider may meet this obligation through a combination of disclosures via email, an online billing statement, or other digital or electronic means for subscribers that communicate with the provider through these means. For a subscriber that does not communicate with the provider through email and/or online billing statements—such as someone who ordered service on the phone or in a physical store and receives a paper bill by regular mail—email would not be a means reasonably calculated to reach that subscriber.
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:32 a.m. on Thursday, January 21, 2016, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters related to the Corporation's supervision, corporate, and resolution activities.
In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice Chairman Thomas M. Hoenig, seconded by Director Thomas J. Curry (Comptroller of the Currency), concurred in by Director Richard Cordray (Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), and Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10).
Family and Youth Services Bureau, ACYF, ACF, HHS.
Notice of the award of a single-source program expansion supplement grant under the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA) Technical Assistance Project to Futures Without Violence to support training and technical assistance activities.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB), Division of Family Violence Prevention and Services (DFVPS), announces the award of $370,000 as a single-source program expansion supplement to Futures Without Violence in San Francisco, CA. The award is a collaboration between ACF/ACYF/FYSB/FVPSA, contributing $120,000, and HHS/Health Resource Services Administration (HRSA), Bureau of Primary Health Care (BPHC), contributing $250,000.
The period of support is September 29, 2015, through September 30, 2016.
Shawndell Dawson, Senior Program Specialist, Family Violence Prevention and Services Program, 1250 Maryland Avenue SW., Suite 8215, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 202-205-1476; email:
The grantee is funded under FYSB's FVPSA Program as a technical assistance provider serving as the FVPSA-funded National Health Resource Center on Domestic Violence.
In accordance with an intra-agency agreement, HRSA/BPHC will provide obligation authority for $250,000 to the ACF/ACYF/FYSB/DFVPS to provide national-level health care and domestic violence training and technical assistance. In accordance with this intra-agency agreement, ACF/ACYF/FYSB/DFVPS has supplemented an existing training and technical assistance cooperative agreement with Futures Without Violence through September 30, 2016. The HRSA/BPHC and ACF/ACYF/FYSB/DFVPS staffs will
Supplemental award funds will support the grantee in providing training and technical assistance to domestic violence service and health care providers.
This award will expand the scope of Futures Without Violence's technical assistance activities to include additional activities concerned with assessing and responding to domestic violence in health clinics and supporting children/youth and abused parents experiencing domestic violence. This additional technical assistance and training may involve such activities as: (1) Providing technical assistance for nine health centers to create health system changes that support providers and create sustainable responses to victims of intimate partner violence; (2) providing training on comprehensive, culturally competent responses to domestic violence within a Patient Centered Medical Home model; (3) creating new technical assistance resources that promote protective factors and resilience when working with children, youth, and teens impacted by domestic violence, which includes fostering stronger relationships with their non-abusive parents or caregivers; (4) providing training to domestic violence programs that improves consistent implementation of evidence-informed, trauma-informed, and culturally relevant programming for children, youth, and abused parents; (4) maintaining an online resource for domestic violence programs:
The solicited application from Futures Without Violence underwent objective review by a federal panel using criteria that assessed the application's project approach, its organizational capacity, and budgeting of projected project costs.
The statutory authority for this award is Section 310 of FVPSA, as amended by Section 201 of the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-320. The HRSA authority for its funding is through Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b).
Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB), ACYF, ACF, HHS.
Notice of the award of a single-source expansion supplement grant Transitional Living Program (TLP) to PathWays PA in Philadelphia, PA, to serve additional runaway and homeless youth.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Family and Youth Services Bureau's (FYSB), Runaway and Homeless Youth Program, announces the award of $200,000 as a single-source expansion supplement grant to PathWays PA to support activities and services for homeless youth under the TLP grant in Philadelphia, PA.
The period of support is September 30, 2015, through September 29, 2016.
Resa F. Matthew, Director, Division of Adolescent Development and Support, Family and Youth Services Bureau, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201; telephone: (202) 401-5124; email:
PathWays PA will serve homeless parenting and non-parenting young women age 16-21. Over the next 12 months, they will serve 10 residential homeless young women in the city of Philadelphia, PA.
The goal of PathWays PA's TLP program is to support homeless youth with positive adult supervision while supporting them in building the assets, strengths, and resources necessary for successful independence. Youth will be housed in five one-bedroom apartments. While in the program, the youth will build life skills and carry out developmental tasks to gain the capacity for independent living and address their assessed/identified needs. They will build assets and strengthen protective factors that reduce the impact of prior trauma (
PathWays PA TLP staff will work with each youth in the context of their experience (
Family and Youth Services Bureau, ACYF, ACF, HHS.
Notice of the award of a single-source program expansion supplement grant under the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA) Technical Assistance (TA) Project to Casa de Esperanza to support training and technical assistance activities.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB), Division of
The period of support for the single-source program expansion supplement is September 30, 2015 through September 29, 2016.
Seema Zeya, Program Specialist, Family Violence Prevention and Services Program, 1250 Maryland Avenue SW., Suite 8220, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 202-205-7889; Email:
Supplemental award funds will support the grantee in providing training and technical assistance to domestic violence service providers.
This award will expand the scope of Casa de Esperanza's technical assistance activities to include supplemental activities around the issue of trafficking for domestic violence programs which may involve activities, such as:
• Training on the intersections of domestic violence, sexual violence, and trafficking including, but not limited to, webinars;
• Listening sessions with FVPSA grantees and culturally-specific community-based organizations regarding needs, challenges, and barriers related to offering trafficking services (
• Documentation of current promising practices for serving survivors of trafficking within domestic violence programs and within culturally-specific community-based organizations (
• Development of a technical assistance plan for fostering and sustaining collaborative partnerships on domestic violence and human trafficking which could include a pilot with 1-2 communities;
• Resource development: Factsheets or concept brief paper on the intersection of domestic violence and human trafficking with recommendations to enhance the provision of direct services for victims; facilitating stronger multidisciplinary partnerships; or culturally/trauma-informed programming.
In addition, the grantee will support and provide training around the issue of language access planning for domestic violence programs for activities, including:
• State-specific training and technical assistance for the 20 State Domestic Violence Coalitions that completed the 2015 Training of Trainers which will include travel to deliver state-specific training;
• Listening sessions with FVPSA state administrators, coalitions, and culturally-specific community based organizations;
• Documentation of the technical assistance needs, implementation successes, and implementation challenges of 20 states beginning language access planning and working to improve language accessibility within their states; and
• Recommendations for state-specific capacity building for the 20 states to enhance statewide language access, including the development of language access plans.
Federal staff conducted an objective review of the solicited application using criteria related to the project's approach, its organizational capacity, and the projected budget for proposed costs in assessing the application.
Section 310 of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, as amended by Section 201 of the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-320.
Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB), ACYF, ACF, HHS
Notice of the award of a single-source expansion supplement grant to the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, Chicago, IL. The award will expand the original scope of approved activities under 3/40 Blueprint: Creating the Blueprint to Reduce LGBTQ Youth Homelessness and will support the (1) review the findings of the systematic review of the literature conducted as part of the 3/40 Blueprint to identify (a) factors that facilitate positive outcomes for transgender youth in stable housing, education and employment, permanent connections, and well-being, and (2) interventions that may facilitate positive outcomes for transgender Runaway and Homeless Youth (RHY).
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB), Division of Runaway and Homeless Youth, announces the award of $150,000 as a single-source expansion supplement grant to the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, Chicago, IL, to support activities under the 3/40 Blueprint: Creating the Blueprint to Reduce LGBTQ Youth Homelessness. 3/40 Blueprint: Creating the Blueprint to Reduce LGBTQ Youth Homelessness has been reviewing research, gathering qualitative information, and collecting data to assist in building the capacity of Transitional Living Programs (TLPs) to meet the needs of runaway and homeless youth who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or questioning (LGBTQ).
The period of support is September 30, 2015 through September 29, 2016.
Resa F. Matthew, Director, Division of Adolescent Development and Support, Family and Youth Services Bureau, 1250 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20024; Telephone: (202) 401-5124; Email:
The purpose of this grant is to assist in building the capacity of TLPs to serve youth who identify as lesbian, gay bisexual, transgender, and/or questioning (LGBTQ) and are experiencing homelessness. Through this demonstration grant, FYSB is solidifying its commitment to improving access to services that meet the unique needs of transgender homeless youth. The intent of the targeted supplement is to support knowledge development to strengthen efforts for better understanding and to address the needs of transgender youth experiencing homelessness. Efforts may include identifying innovative, transgender-specific intervention strategies, determining culturally appropriate screening and assessment tools, gathering information on services and
Specifically, this supplemental award will support the review of findings on the systematic review of the literature conducted as part of the 3/40 BLUEPRINT to identify factors that facilitate positive outcomes for transgender youth in stable housing, education and employment, permanent connections, and well-being interventions that may facilitate positive outcomes for transgender RHY.
Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, 42 U.S.C. 5701-5752, as most recently amended by the Reconnecting Homeless Youth Act, of 2008, Pub. L. 110-378 on October 8, 2008. Under Section 343, the Secretary may make grants to carry out research, evaluation, demonstration, and service projects regarding activities under this title designed to increase knowledge concerning, and to improve services for, runaway youth and homeless youth with a concentration on Transitional Living Programs.
Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB), ACYF, ACF, DHHS.
Notice of the award of a single-source expansion supplement grant to the National Runaway Switchboard to support the translation of “Let's Talk Curriculum” into Spanish and disseminate it to culturally appropriate prevention resources to expand outreach to Latino youth and their families.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB), Division of Adolescent Development and Support (DADS), announces the award of a single-source expansion supplement grant of $34,000 to the National Runaway Switchboard to support research and the translation of “Let's Talk Curriculum” into Spanish and disseminate it to culturally appropriate prevention resources to expand outreach to Latino youth and their families.
The award will support activities from September 29, 2015 through September 29, 2016.
Christopher Holloway, Central Office Program Manager, Runaway and Homeless Youth Program, Division of Adolescent Development and Support, Family and Youth Services Bureau, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201; Telephone: 202-205-9560; Email:
The National Runaway Safeline, operated by the National Runaway Switchboard, serves as the federally-designated national communication system for homeless and runaway youth. Through hotline and online services, the National Runaway Switchboard provides crisis intervention, referrals to local resources, and education and prevention services to runaway, homeless, and at-risk youth, their families, and communities 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, every day of the year, in a neutral and confidential manner. Beyond its mission, the National Runaway Switchboard is committed to elevate the dialogue about runaway and homeless youth issues to ensure everyone understands the importance of supporting vulnerable youth, the programs that serve them, and the value of disseminating prevention materials to increase skills and competencies among at-risk youth.
The expansion supplement award will allow the National Runaway Switchboard to:
• Conduct research to increase public education on issues impacting at-risk, runaway, and homeless youth and to disseminate data about the need to support youth-serving programs in communities nationwide.
• Translate the “Let's Talk Curriculum” into a Spanish version and disseminate it to culturally appropriate prevention resources to expand outreach to Latino youth and their families.
The National Runaway Switchboard will conduct the research to analyze their data and utilize the research findings to enhance prevention programs, improve technical support, and reach out to diverse media outlets to increase public knowledge on these issues. More important, the research information will assist youth-serving organizations in explaining the need for their services. Often, local stakeholders do not understand the importance of providing services and programs to runaway and homeless youth because they are not aware of the impact of these issues. When a youth runs away, the impact is felt throughout an entire community. By learning about the causes, short-term, and long-term effects of runaway and homeless behaviors, communities can move away from stereotypes and provide the resources and connections needed for vulnerable youth.
The research and Spanish translation services are crucial projects that support the Switchboard's efforts, and FYSB's commitment, to provide resources to runaway and homeless youth, underserved communities, and those who support these vulnerable populations.
Office of Refugee Resettlement, ACF, HHS.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), announces the award of a single-source program expansion supplement grant to BCFS Health and Human Services (BCFS) in San Antonio, TX, under the Unaccompanied Children's (UC) Program to support home study services.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), announces the award of a single-source program expansion supplement grant for $500,000. The expansion supplement grant will support the need to increase home study capacity to expedite
BCFS provides nationwide coverage of home study services to children in the care and custody of ORR, as well as services to include counseling, case management, and additional support services to the family or to the UC and their sponsor when a UC is released from ORR's care and custody.
Supplemental award funds will support activities from September 29, 2015 through September 30, 2015.
Jallyn Sualog, Director, Division of Children's Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement, 901 D Street SW., Washington, DC 20447. Email:
While this number of referrals to the Unaccompanied Children Program in FY 2015 is well below the total referrals from FY 2014, ORR has seen a change to recent referral trends, including a steady August referral rate and an increasing occupancy rate of UC in care. This increase in referrals has also generated a correlating increase in the need for home study services. The supplemental awards will support and expand home study services for UC to facilitate their release from ORR custody.
ORR has specific requirements for the provision of services. Award recipients must have the infrastructure, licensing, experience, and appropriate level of trained staff to meet the service requirements and the urgent need for expansion of services. The program's ability to avoid a buildup of children waiting, in Border Patrol stations, for placement in shelters, can only be accommodated through the expansion of the existing program and its services through the supplemental award.
This program is authorized by—
(A) Section 462 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which in March 2003, transferred responsibility for the care and custody of Unaccompanied Alien Children from the Commissioner of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to the Director of ORR of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
(B) The Flores Settlement Agreement, Case No. CV85-4544RJK (C. D. Cal. 1996), as well as the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-457), which authorizes post release services under certain conditions to eligible children. All programs must comply with the Flores Settlement Agreement, Case No. CV85-4544-RJK (C.D. Cal. 1996), pertinent regulations and ORR policies and procedures.
Family and Youth Services Bureau, ACYF, ACF, HHS.
Notice of the award of a single-source program expansion supplement grant under the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA) Technical Assistance (TA) Project to the Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum in Oakland, CA, to support training and technical assistance activities by the Asian and Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence (APIIDV).
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB), Division of Family Violence and Prevention Services (DFVPS), announces the award of $175,000 as a single-source program expansion supplement grant to the Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum. The grantee, funded under the Family Violence Protection and Services Act (FVPSA) program, is a technical assistance (TA) provider that assists FVPSA service providers to build the capacity of domestic violence programs.
The period of support for the single-source program expansion supplement is September 30, 2015 through September 29, 2016.
Seema Zeya, Program Specialist, Family Violence Prevention and Services Program, 1250 Maryland Avenue SW., Suite 8220, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 202-205-7889; Email:
Supplemental award funds will support the grantee, Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum, in providing training and technical assistance (T/TA) to domestic violence service providers by the Asian and Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence (APIIDV) in San Francisco, CA.
This award will expand the scope of T/TA activities to include supplemental activities concerning the issue of trafficking for domestic violence programs, which may involve activities including:
• Training on the intersection of issues related to domestic violence, sexual violence, and victims of trafficking including:
• Listening sessions with FVPSA grantees and culturally specific, community-based organizations regarding needs, challenges, and barriers related to offering services on trafficking;
• Documentation of current promising practices for serving survivors of trafficking within domestic violence programs and culturally specific, community-based organizations;
• Development of a TA plan for fostering and sustaining collaborative partnerships on domestic violence and human trafficking, which may include a community pilot program;
• Resource development that will include the development and dissemination of factsheets and/or concept papers on the intersection of issues related to domestic violence and human trafficking that will provide recommendations that will enhance the provision of direct services for victims, facilitate strengthening multidisciplinary partnerships, or the development of culturally-informed trauma-related programming; and
• Convening a working group that examines typologies related to human trafficking that are specific to Asian communities that will develop intervention and prevention recommendations for service providers and TA providers.
In addition, APIIDV will support and provide training on the issue of language access planning for domestic violence programs that will include activities such as:
• Training and technical assistance for the 20 State Domestic Violence Coalitions that have already completed the 2015 Training of Trainers;
• Listening sessions with FVPSA state administrators, coalitions, and culturally-specific community-based organizations;
• Documentation of the technical assistance needs, implementation successes, and implementation challenges of the 20 states that are beginning language access planning and
• Recommendations for state-specific capacity building for the 20 states intended to enhance statewide language access, which will include the development of language access plans.
An objective review of was conducted that assessed the grantee's application using criteria related to the project's approach, the organization's capacity, and the development of costs for the project's budget.
Section 310 of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, as amended by Section 201 of the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-320.
Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
This notice provides an update of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines to account for last calendar year's increase in prices as measured by the Consumer Price Index.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Room 404E, Humphrey Building, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC 20201.
For information about how the guidelines are used or how income is defined in a particular program, contact the Federal, state, or local office that is responsible for that program. For information about poverty figures for immigration forms, the Hill-Burton Uncompensated Services Program, and the number of people in poverty, use the specific telephone numbers and addresses given below.
For general questions about the poverty guidelines themselves, contact Kendall Swenson, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Room 422F.5, Humphrey Building, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC 20201—telephone: (202) 690-7507—or visit
For information about the percentage multiple of the poverty guidelines to be used on immigration forms such as USCIS Form I-864, Affidavit of Support, contact U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services at 1-800-375-5283.
For information about the Hill-Burton Uncompensated Services Program (free or reduced-fee health care services at certain hospitals and other facilities for persons meeting eligibility criteria involving the poverty guidelines), contact the Health Resources and Services Administration Information Center at 1-800-275-4772. You also may visit
For information about the number of people in poverty, visit the Poverty section of the Census Bureau's Web site at
Section 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to update the poverty guidelines at least annually, adjusting them on the basis of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). The poverty guidelines are used as an eligibility criterion by the Community Services Block Grant program and a number of other Federal programs. The
As required by law, this update is accomplished by increasing the latest published Census Bureau poverty thresholds by the relevant percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). The guidelines in this 2016 notice reflect the 0.1 percent price increase between calendar years 2014 and 2015. After this inflation adjustment, the guidelines are rounded and adjusted to standardize the differences between family sizes. In rare circumstances, the rounding and standardizing adjustments in the formula result in small decreases in the poverty guidelines for some household sizes even when the inflation factor is not negative. In order to prevent a reduction in the guidelines in these rare circumstances, a minor adjustment was implemented to the formula beginning this year. In cases where the year-to-year change in inflation is not negative and the rounding and standardizing adjustments in the formula result in reductions to the guidelines from the previous year for some household sizes, the guidelines for the affected household sizes are fixed at the prior year's guidelines. As in prior years, these 2016 guidelines are roughly equal to the poverty thresholds for calendar year 2015 which the Census Bureau expects to publish in final form in September 2016.
The poverty guidelines continue to be derived from the Census Bureau's current official poverty thresholds; they are not derived from the Census Bureau's new Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM).
The following guideline figures represent annual income.
Separate poverty guideline figures for Alaska and Hawaii reflect Office of Economic Opportunity administrative practice beginning in the 1966-1970 period. (Note that the Census Bureau poverty thresholds—the version of the poverty measure used for statistical purposes—have never had separate figures for Alaska and Hawaii.) The poverty guidelines are not defined for Puerto Rico or other outlying jurisdictions. In cases in which a Federal program using the poverty guidelines serves any of those jurisdictions, the Federal office that administers the program is generally responsible for deciding whether to use the contiguous-states-and-DC guidelines for those jurisdictions or to follow some other procedure.
Due to confusing legislative language dating back to 1972, the poverty guidelines sometimes have been mistakenly referred to as the “OMB” (Office of Management and Budget) poverty guidelines or poverty line. In fact, OMB has never issued the guidelines; the guidelines are issued each year by the Department of Health and Human Services. The poverty guidelines may be formally referenced as “the poverty guidelines updated periodically in the
Some federal programs use a percentage multiple of the guidelines (for example, 125 percent or 185 percent of the guidelines), as noted in relevant authorizing legislation or program regulations. Non-Federal organizations that use the poverty guidelines under their own authority in non-Federally-funded activities also may choose to use a percentage multiple of the guidelines.
The poverty guidelines do not make a distinction between farm and non-farm families, or between aged and non-aged units. (Only the Census Bureau poverty thresholds have separate figures for aged and non-aged one-person and two-person units.)
Note that this notice does not provide definitions of such terms as “income” or “family,” because there is considerable variation in defining these terms among the different programs that use the guidelines. These variations are traceable to the different laws and regulations that govern the various programs. This means that questions such as “Is income counted before or after taxes?”, “Should a particular type of income be counted?”, and “Should a particular person be counted as a member of the family/household?” are actually questions about how a specific program applies the poverty guidelines. All such questions about how a specific program applies the guidelines should be directed to the entity that administers or funds the program, since that entity has the responsibility for defining such terms as “income” or “family,” to the extent that these terms are not already defined for the program in legislation or regulations.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Under the provisions of section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instrument or to request more information on the proposed project contact: Dr. Sarah Glavin, Acting Director, Office of Science Policy, Analysis, and Communications, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, 31 Center Dr., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2A28, Bethesda, MD 20892, or call non-toll-free number (301) 496-7898, or email your request, including your address to:
The purpose of this information collection is to solicit information from applicants about their qualifications that would make them effective Leaders, their reason for wanting to pursue this opportunity, and the details of their proposed program (including, but not limited to, location, community partner(s), and proposed budget). This information will help NICHD staff select the candidates for the program who are most likely to succeed in implementing the full curriculum and teaching youth effective lessons about nutrition, physical activity, and media.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 800.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Privacy Act System of Records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security proposes to update and reissue a current Department of Homeland Security system of records titled, “Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)-007 Border Crossing Information (BCI) System of Records.” This system of records allows DHS/CBP to collect and maintain records on border crossing information for all individuals who enter, are admitted or paroled into, and (when available) exit from the United States, regardless of method or conveyance. The BCI includes certain biographic and biometric information; photographs; certain mandatory or voluntary itinerary information provided by air, sea, bus, and rail carriers or any other forms of passenger transportation; and the time and location of the border crossing.
This system of records notice was previously published in the
DHS/CBP is updating this system of records notice to provide notice of that BCI may be stored on both DHS unclassified and classified networks to allow for analysis and vetting consistent with existing DHS/CBP authorities and purposes and this published notice. Furthermore, this notice includes non-substantive changes to simplify the formatting and text of the previously published notice.
The exemptions for the existing system of records notice published May 11, 2015 (80 FR 26937) continue to apply for this updated system of records for those categories of records listed in the previous BCI system of records notice. DHS will include this system in its inventory of record systems.
This updated system will be effective upon the public display of this notice. Although this system is effective upon publication, DHS will accept and consider comments from the public and evaluate the need for any revisions to this notice.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2016-0006 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general questions, please contact: John Connors (202) 344-1610, Privacy Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Privacy and Diversity Office, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20229. For privacy questions, please contact: Karen L. Neuman, (202) 343-1717, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) proposes to update and reissue a current DHS system of records titled, “DHS/CBP-007 Border Crossing Information (BCI) System of Records.” DHS/CBP is updating the system location for this system of records notice (SORN) to reflect that records within the DHS/CBP BCI system are also stored on both DHS unclassified and classified networks to allow for analysis and vetting consistent with existing DHS/CBP authorities and purposes and this published notice.
DHS/CBP's priority mission is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the country while facilitating legitimate travel and trade. To facilitate this mission, DHS/CBP
DHS/CBP is responsible for collecting and reviewing BCI from travelers entering and departing the United States as part of DHS/CBP's overall border security and enforcement missions. All individuals crossing the border are subject to DHS/CBP processing upon arrival in the United States. Each traveler entering the United States is required to establish his or her identity, nationality, and admissibility, as applicable, to the satisfaction of a CBP Officer during the clearance process. To manage this process, DHS/CBP creates a record of an individual's admission or parole into the United States at a particular time and port of entry. DHS/CBP also collects information about U.S. citizens and certain aliens (in-scope travelers pursuant to 8 CFR 215.8, “requirements for biometric identifiers from aliens on departure from the United States”) upon departure from the United States for law enforcement purposes and to document their border crossing.
DHS is statutorily mandated to create and integrate an automated entry and exit system that records the arrival and departure of aliens, verifies alien identities, and authenticates alien travel documents through the comparison of biometric identifiers (8 U.S.C. 1365(b)). Certain aliens may be required to provide biometrics (including digital fingerprint scans, palm prints, photographs, facial and iris images, or other biometric identifiers) upon arrival in or departure from the United States. The biometric data is stored in the Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) IT system. IDENT stores and processes biometric data (
Collection of additional biometric information from individuals crossing the border (such as information regarding scars, marks, tattoos, and palm prints) aids biometric sharing between the Department of Justice (DOJ) Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS)/Next Generation Identification (NGI) and the IDENT system. The end result is enhanced access to (and in some cases acquisition of) IAFIS/NGI information by the IDENT system and its users. DHS, DOJ/FBI, and the Department of State (DOS)/Bureau of Consular Services entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Improved Information Sharing Services in 2008. The MOUs established the framework for sharing information in accordance with an agreed-upon technical solution for expanded IDENT/IAFIS/NGI interoperability, which provides access to additional data for a greater number of authorized users.
CBP collects border crossing information stored in this system of records through a number of sources, for example: (1) Travel documents (
DHS/CBP is updating the system location to inform the public that certain BCI information may be replicated from the operational system and maintained on DHS unclassified and classified networks to allow for analysis and vetting consistent with existing DHS/CBP authorities and purposes and this published notice. Furthermore, this notice includes non-substantive changes to simplify the formatting and text of the previously published notice.
Consistent with DHS's information sharing mission, information stored in the DHS/CBP-007 BCI SORN may be shared with other DHS Components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions.
The exemptions for the existing system of records notice published May 11, 2015 (80 FR 26937) continue to apply for this updated system of records for those categories of records listed in the previous System of Records Notice. A Final Rule exempting portions of this system from certain provisions of the Privacy Act was published on Feb. 3, 2010, and remains in effect (75 FR 5491); however, the Department of Homeland Security recently published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to clarify the exemptions for this system (80 FR 79487, Dec. 22, 2015) and a new Final Rule is forthcoming. Furthermore, to the extent certain categories of records are ingested from other systems, the exemptions applicable to the source systems will remain in effect.
The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which the Federal Government collects, maintains, uses, and disseminates individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. As a matter of policy, DHS extends administrative Privacy Act protections to all individuals when systems of records maintain information on U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visitors.
Below is the description of the DHS/CBP-007 Border Crossing Information (BCI) System of Records.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)-007.
DHS/CBP-007 Border Crossing Information (BCI).
Unclassified, Sensitive, For Official Use Only (FOUO), and Law Enforcement-Sensitive (LES). The data may be retained on classified networks, but this does not change the nature and character of the data until it is combined with classified information.
DHS/CBP currently maintains records in the operational information technology (IT) system at DHS/CBP Headquarters in Washington, DC and at field offices. This computer database is located at DHS/CBP National Data Center (NDC) in Washington, DC Computer terminals are located at customhouses, border ports of entry, airport inspection facilities under the jurisdiction of DHS/CBP, and other locations at which DHS/CBP authorized personnel may be posted to facilitate DHS's mission. Terminals may also be located at appropriate facilities for other participating government agencies. Records are replicated from the operational IT system and maintained on DHS unclassified and classified networks.
Individuals with records stored in BCI include U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents (LPR), and immigrant and non-immigrant aliens who lawfully cross the U.S. border by air, land, or sea, regardless of method of transportation or conveyance.
DHS/CBP collects and stores the following records in the BCI system as border crossing information:
• Full name (last, first, and, if available, middle);
• Date of birth;
• Gender;
• Travel document type and number (
• Issuing country or entity and expiration date;
• Photograph (when available);
• Country of citizenship;
• Tattoos;
• Scars;
• Marks;
• Palm prints;
• Digital fingerprints;
• Photographs;
• Digital iris scans;
• Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag number(s) (if land or sea border crossing);
• Date and time of crossing;
• Lane for clearance processing;
• Location of crossing;
• Secondary Examination Status; and
• For land border crossings only, license plate number or Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) (if no plate exists).
CBP maintains in BCI information derived from an associated APIS transmission (when applicable), including:
• Full name (last, first, and, if available, middle);
• Date of birth;
• Gender;
• Country of citizenship;
• Passport/alien registration number and country of issuance;
• Passport expiration date;
• Country of residence;
• Status on board the aircraft;
• Travel document type;
• United States destination address (for all private aircraft passengers and crew, and commercial air, rail, bus, and vessel passengers except for U.S. Citizens, LPRs, crew, and those in transit);
• Place of birth and address of permanent residence (commercial flight crew only);
• Pilot certificate number and country of issuance (flight crew only, if applicable);
• Passenger Name Record (PNR) locator number;
• Primary inspection lane;
• ID inspector;
• Records containing the results of comparisons of individuals to information maintained in CBP's law enforcement databases as well as information from the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB);
• Information on individuals with outstanding wants or warrants; and
• Information from other government agencies regarding high risk parties.
CBP collects records under the Entry/Exit Program with Canada, such as border crossing data from the CBSA, including:
• Full name (last, first, and if available, middle);
• Date of Birth;
• Nationality (citizenship);
• Gender;
• Document Type;
• Document Number;
• Document Country of Issuance;
• Port of entry location (Port code);
• Date of entry; and
• Time of entry.
In addition, air and sea carriers or operators covered by the APIS rules and rail and bus carriers (to the extent voluntarily applicable) also transmit or provide the following information to CBP for retention in BCI:
• Airline carrier code;
• Flight number;
• Vessel name;
• Vessel country of registry/flag;
• International Maritime Organization number or other official number of the vessel;
• Voyage number;
• Date of arrival/departure;
• Foreign airport/port where the passengers and crew members began their air/sea transportation to the United States;
• For passengers and crew members destined for the United States:
○ The location where the passengers and crew members will undergo customs and immigration clearance by CBP.
• For passengers and crew members who are transiting through (and crew on flights over flying) the United States and not clearing CBP:
○ The foreign airport/port of ultimate destination; and
○ Status on board (whether an individual is crew or non-crew).
• For passengers and crew departing the United States:
○ Final foreign airport/port of arrival.
Other information also stored in this system of records includes:
• Aircraft registration number provided by pilots of private aircraft;
• Type of aircraft;
• Call sign (if available);
• CBP issued decal number (if available);
• Place of last departure (
• Date and time of aircraft arrival;
• Estimated time and location of crossing U.S. border or coastline;
• Name of intended airport of first landing, if applicable;
• Owner or lessee name (first, last, and middle, if available, or business entity name);
• Owner or lessee contact information (address, city, state, zip code, country, telephone number, fax number, and email address, pilot, or private aircraft pilot name);
• Pilot information (license number, street address (number and street, city state, zip code, country, telephone number, fax number, and email address));
• Pilot license country of issuance;
• Operator name (for individuals: last, first, and middle, if available; or name of business entity, if available);
• Operator street address (number and street, city, state, zip code, country, telephone number, fax number, and email address);
• Aircraft color(s);
• Complete itinerary (foreign airport landings within 24 hours prior to landing in the United States);
• 24-hour emergency point of contact information (
○ Full name (last, first, and middle (if available)) and telephone number; and
• Incident to the transmission of required information via eAPIS (for general aviation itineraries, pilot, and passenger manifests), records will also incorporate the pilot's email address.
To the extent private aircraft operators and carriers operating in the land border environment may transmit APIS, similar information may also be recorded in BCI by CBP with regard to such travel. CBP also collects the license plate number of the conveyance (or VIN number when no plate exists) in the land border environment for both arrival and departure (when departure information is available).
Authority for BCI is provided by the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-173, 116 Stat. 543 (2002)); the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597); the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638 (2004)); the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1185 and 1354); and the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1322-1683g, including 19 U.S.C. 66, 1433, 1454, 1485, 1624 and 2071).
DHS/CBP collects and maintains this information to vet and inspect persons arriving in or departing from the United States; to determine identity, citizenship, and admissibility; and to identify persons who: (1) May be (or are suspected of being) a terrorist or having affiliations to terrorist organizations; (2) have active warrants for criminal activity; (3) are currently inadmissible or have been previously removed from the United States; or (4) have been otherwise identified as potential security risks or raise a law enforcement concern. For immigrant and non-immigrant aliens, the information is also collected and maintained to ensure information related to a particular border crossing is available for providing any applicable benefits related to immigration or other enforcement purposes. Lastly, DHS/CBP maintains information in BCI to retain a historical record of persons crossing the border to facilitate law enforcement, counterterrorism, and benefits processing.
DHS/CBP maintains a replica of some or all of the data in the operating system on DHS unclassified and classified networks to allow for analysis and vetting consistent with the above stated purposes and this published notice.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DHS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
A. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), including Offices of the United States Attorneys, or other federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
1. DHS or any Component thereof;
2. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her official capacity;
3. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her individual capacity when DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. The United States or any agency thereof.
B. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
C. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or General Services Administration pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
D. To an agency or organization for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
E. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
1. DHS suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;
2. DHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of identity theft or fraud, harm to economic or property interests, harm to an individual, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by DHS or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and
3. The disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
F. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for DHS, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to DHS officers and employees.
G. To an appropriate federal, state, tribal, local, international, or foreign law enforcement agency or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation or enforcing or implementing a law, rule, regulation, or order, when a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, which includes criminal, civil, or regulatory violations and such disclosure is proper and consistent with the official duties of the person making the disclosure.
H. To appropriate federal, state, tribal, local, or foreign governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations responsible for investigating or prosecuting the violations of, or for enforcing or implementing, a statute, rule, regulation, order, or license, when DHS believes the information would assist enforcement of applicable civil or criminal laws.
I. To the CBSA for law enforcement and immigration purposes, as well as to facilitate cross-border travel when an individual enters the United States from Canada.
J. To appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations when DHS reasonably believes there to be a threat (or potential threat) to national or international security for which the information may be relevant in countering the threat (or potential threat).
K. To a federal, state, tribal, or local agency, other appropriate entity or
L. To an organization or individual in either the public or private sector (foreign or domestic) when there is a reason to believe that the recipient is (or could become) the target of a particular terrorist activity or conspiracy, or when the information is relevant and necessary to the protection of life or property.
M. To appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations for the purposes of protecting the vital interests of the data subject or other persons, including to assist such agencies or organizations in preventing exposure to or transmission of a communicable or quarantinable disease, to combat other significant public health threats, or to provide appropriate notice of any identified health threat or risk.
N. To a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal in the course of presenting evidence, including disclosures to opposing counsel or witnesses in the course of civil discovery, litigation, or settlement negotiations, or in response to a subpoena, or in connection with criminal law proceedings.
O. To third parties during the course of a law enforcement investigation to the extent necessary to obtain information pertinent to the investigation.
P. To appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations when DHS is aware of a need to use relevant data for purposes of testing new technology.
Q. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer in consultation with counsel, when there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information or when disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of DHS or is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of DHS's officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent it is determined that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
None.
DHS/CBP stores records in this system electronically in the operational IT system, including on DHS unclassified and classified networks, or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records may be stored on magnetic disc, tape, digital media, and CD-ROM.
DHS/CBP retrieves records by name or other personal identifiers listed in the categories of records, above.
DHS/CBP safeguards records in this system in accordance with applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access policies. Strict controls are imposed to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. DHS/CBP limits access to BCI to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who also have appropriate clearances or permissions.
DHS/CBP is working with NARA to develop the appropriate retention schedule based on the information below. For persons DHS/CBP determines to be U.S. citizens and LPRs, information in BCI that is related to a particular border crossing is maintained for 15 years from the date when the traveler entered, was admitted to or paroled into, or departed the United States, at which time it is deleted from BCI. For non-immigrant aliens, the information will be maintained for 75 years from the date of admission or parole into or departure from the United States in order to ensure that the information related to a particular border crossing is available for providing any applicable benefits related to immigration or for other law enforcement purposes.
Information related to border crossings prior to a change in status will follow the 75 year retention period for non-immigrant aliens who become U.S. citizens or LPRs following a border crossing that leads to the creation of a record in BCI. All information regarding border crossing by such persons following their change in status will follow the 15 year retention period applicable to U.S. citizens and LPRs. For all travelers, however, BCI records linked to active law enforcement lookout records, DHS/CBP matches to enforcement activities, or investigations or cases remain accessible for the life of the primary records of the law enforcement activities to which the BCI records may relate, to the extent retention for such purposes exceeds the normal retention period for such data in BCI.
Records replicated on the unclassified and classified networks for analysis and vetting will follow the same retention schedule.
Director, Office of Automated Systems, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Headquarters, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229.
DHS/CBP allows persons (including foreign nationals) to seek administrative access under the Privacy Act to information maintained in BCI. However, the Secretary of DHS exempted portions of this system from the notification, access, and amendment procedures of the Privacy Act because it is a law enforcement system. Nonetheless, DHS/CBP will consider individual requests to determine whether or not information may be released. Thus, individuals seeking notification of and access to any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to the DHS Chief Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer or CBP FOIA Officer, whose contact information can be found at
When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records, your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR part 5. You must first verify your identity, meaning that you must provide your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. You must sign your request and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. Although no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the Chief Privacy Officer and Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer,
• Explain why you believe the Department would have information on you;
• Identify which Component(s) of the Department you believe may have the information about you;
• Specify when you believe the records would have been created; and
• Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which DHS Component agency may have responsive records.
If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual certifying his/her agreement for you to access his/her records.
Without the above information, CBP may not be able to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.
In processing requests for access to information in this system, CBP will review the records in the operational system and coordinate with DHS to address access to records on the DHS unclassified and classified networks.
See “Notification procedure” above.
See “Notification procedure” above.
DHS/CBP collects information from individuals who arrive in, depart from, or transit through the United States. This system also collects information from carriers that operate vessels, vehicles, aircraft, or trains that enter or exit the United States, including private aircraft operators. Lastly, BCI receives border crossing information received from CBSA.
No exemption shall be asserted with respect to information maintained in the system that is
The Privacy Act, however, requires DHS to maintain an accounting of the disclosures made pursuant to all routines uses. Disclosing the fact that a law enforcement or intelligence agency has sought particular records may affect ongoing law enforcement activities. The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: Sections (c)(3), (e)(8), and (g) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, as is necessary and appropriate to protect this information. Further, DHS has exempted section (c)(3) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) as is necessary and appropriate to protect this information.
Additionally, this system contains records or information recompiled from or created from information contained in other systems of records that are exempt from certain provision of the Privacy Act. This system also contains accountings of disclosures made with respect to information maintained in the system. For these records or information only, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2), DHS will also claim the original exemptions for these records or information from subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (4)(G) through (I), (5), and (8); (f); and (g) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, as necessary and appropriate to protect such information.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Through this Notice, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announces that the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) is extending the designation of Sudan for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months, from May 3, 2016 through November 2, 2017.
The extension allows currently eligible TPS beneficiaries to retain TPS through November 2, 2017, so long as they otherwise continue to meet the eligibility requirements for TPS. The Secretary has determined that an extension is warranted because the conditions in Sudan that prompted the 2013 TPS redesignation continue to be met. Sudan continues to experience ongoing armed conflict and extraordinary and temporary conditions within the country that prevent its nationals from returning to Sudan in safety.
Through this Notice, DHS also sets forth procedures necessary for eligible nationals of Sudan (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Sudan) to re-register for TPS and to apply for renewal of their Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Re-registration is limited to persons who have previously registered for TPS under the designation of Sudan and whose applications have been granted. Certain nationals of Sudan (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Sudan) who have not previously applied for TPS may be eligible to apply under the late initial registration provisions if they meet (1) at least one of the late initial filing criteria, and (2) all TPS eligibility criteria (including continuous residence in the United States since January 9, 2013, and continuous physical presence in the United States since May 3, 2013).
For individuals who have already been granted TPS under Sudan's designation, the 60-day re-registration period runs from January 25, 2016 through March 25, 2016. USCIS will issue new EADs with a November 2, 2017 expiration date to eligible Sudan TPS beneficiaries who timely re-register and apply for EADs under this extension. Given the timeframes involved with processing TPS re-registration applications, DHS recognizes that not all re-registrants will receive new EADs before their current EADs expire on May 2, 2016. Accordingly, through this Notice, DHS automatically extends the validity of EADs issued under the TPS designation of Sudan for 6 months, through November 2, 2016, and explains how TPS beneficiaries and their employers may determine which EADs are automatically extended and their impact on Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) and the E-Verify processes.
The 18-month extension of the TPS designation of Sudan is effective May 3, 2016, and will remain in effect through November 2, 2017. The 60-day re-registration period runs from January 25, 2016 through March 25, 2016. (
• For further information on TPS, including guidance on the application
You can find specific information about Sudan's TPS extension by selecting “Sudan” from the menu on the left side of the TPS Web page.
• For questions concerning this FRN, you can also contact the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2060; or by phone at (202) 272-1533 (this is not a toll-free number). Note: The phone number provided here is solely for questions regarding this TPS Notice. It is not for individual case status inquires.
• Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at
• Further information will also be available at local USCIS offices upon publication of this Notice.
• TPS is a temporary immigration status granted to eligible nationals of a country designated for TPS under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), or to eligible persons without nationality who last habitually resided in the designated country.
• During the TPS designation period, TPS beneficiaries are eligible to remain in the United States, may not be removed, and are authorized to work and obtain EADs so long as they continue to meet the requirements of TPS.
• TPS beneficiaries may also apply for and be granted travel authorization as a matter of discretion.
• The granting of TPS does not result in or lead to permanent resident status.
• To qualify for TPS, beneficiaries must meet the eligibility standards at INA section 244(c)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(2).
• When the Secretary terminates a country's TPS designation, beneficiaries return to the same immigration status they maintained before TPS, if any (unless that status has since expired or been terminated), or to any other lawfully obtained immigration status they received while registered for TPS.
On November 4, 1997, the Attorney General designated Sudan for TPS due to ongoing armed conflict and extraordinary and temporary conditions within Sudan.
Section 244(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1), authorizes the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate agencies of the U.S. Government (Government), to designate a foreign state (or part thereof) for TPS if the Secretary determines that certain country conditions exist.
At least 60 days before the expiration of a country's TPS designation or extension, the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate Government agencies, must review the conditions in a foreign state designated for TPS to determine whether the conditions for the TPS designation continue to be met.
DHS and the Department of State (DOS) have reviewed conditions in Sudan. Based on the reviews and after consulting with DOS, the Secretary has determined that an 18-month extension is warranted because the conditions supporting Sudan's designation for TPS continue to exist.
The political and humanitarian situation in Sudan continues to be volatile and dangerous with internal armed conflicts in Darfur and in the Two Areas (South Kordofan and Blue Nile states). Reports of violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law persist, with those reports indicating that such violations and abuses have been largely perpetrated by the Sudanese government forces and pro-government militias against civilians.
Since 2003, the Government of Sudan (GOS) and armed opposition groups have fought in Darfur. In 2014, the GOS deployed a new paramilitary force in Darfur known as the Rapid Support Forces, after which displacement in the region increased. This upsurge correlated with the GOS' declared “Decisive Summer Campaign” that began in April 2014, through which the GOS sought to eradicate all armed rebellion within the country. The campaign was renewed in December 2014 and has continued into 2015, with the GOS proclaiming expected
In its 12th year, the Darfur conflict is widespread and unpredictable. Darfur has witnessed an increase in criminal activity and intertribal conflict. Clashes between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and armed opposition groups, as well as intertribal fighting, displaced approximately 430,000 people in 2014. The United Nations (UN) Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported that an estimated 143,000 persons were displaced between January and May 2015, bringing the total number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the Darfur region to approximately 2.5 million.
In the Two Areas, the SAF continued to fight the Sudan People's Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N) for control over towns, military strongholds, and supply routes. According to Amnesty International, Sudanese forces have employed indiscriminate aerial bombardment and shelling of villages in the region. The SAF reportedly has carried out sustained aerial bombardments in and around Kauda, a major town in Heiban County, as well as aerial bombardments and shelling in Um Dorein and Delami counties, destroying schools, clinics, hospitals, and other buildings, and forcing people to flee their homes. Reports indicated an estimated 1.7 million IDPs in both government and SPLM-N controlled territories, roughly half of the total population in both areas. In March 2015, OCHA reported that, due to the ongoing armed conflict, at least 250,000 Sudanese had fled from the Two Areas to South Sudan and Ethiopia.
A determination of the status of the disputed Abyei area remains elusive. The governments of Sudan and South Sudan withdrew their forces from Abyei in 2012. The UN Interim Security Force for Abyei maintains an uneasy peace, but the potential for a return to violence remains.
Reports of human rights violations and abuses in Sudan are widespread, including those involving extrajudicial and other unlawful killings. The GOS continued to abuse members of certain populations, including journalists, political opposition, civil society, and ethnic and religious minority groups.
Sudan's operating environment for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) remains challenging primarily because of restrictions or bans on NGO operations and the movements of their workers, particularly in the conflict-affected areas of Darfur and the Two Areas. The GOS' “Decisive Summer Campaign” has also eroded the existing but limited health services in the Two Areas.
UN figures indicate that approximately 6.9 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance in Sudan. According to the UN International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF), Sudan continues to be one of the worst crises for children in the world today. There are 3.24 million children targeted for humanitarian assistance by the UN's Humanitarian Response Plan in 2015. UNICEF reported that approximately 2 million children are suffering from malnutrition, of which approximately 550,000 are suffering from severe acute malnutrition.
Based upon this review and after consultation with appropriate Government agencies, the Secretary has determined that:
• The conditions that prompted the 2013 redesignation of Sudan for TPS continue to be met.
• There continues to be ongoing armed conflict in Sudan and, due to such conflict, requiring the return of Sudanese nationals (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Sudan) to Sudan would pose a serious threat to their personal safety.
• There continue to be extraordinary and temporary conditions in Sudan that prevent Sudanese nationals (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Sudan) from returning to Sudan in safety.
• It is not contrary to the national interest of the United States to permit Sudanese nationals (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Sudan) who meet the eligibility requirements of TPS to remain in the United States temporarily.
• The designation of Sudan for TPS should be extended for an 18-month period from May 3, 2016 through November 2, 2017.
• There are approximately 450 current Sudan TPS beneficiaries who are expected to file for re-registration under the extension.
By the authority vested in me as Secretary under INA section 244, 8 U.S.C. 1254a, I have determined, after consultation with the appropriate Government agencies, that the conditions that prompted the redesignation of TPS for Sudan in 2013 continue to be met.
To register or re-register for TPS based on the designation of Sudan, you must submit each of the following applications:
1. Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821).
• If you are filing an application for late initial registration, you must pay the fee for the Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821).
• If you are filing an application for re-registration, you do not need to pay the fee for the Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821).
2. Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765).
• If you are applying for late initial registration and want an EAD, you must pay the fee for the Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) only if you are age 14 through 65. You do not need to pay the Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) fee if you are under the age of 14 or are 66 and older, applying for late initial registration and you want an EAD.
• If you are applying for re-registration, you must pay the fee for the Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765), regardless of your age, if you want an EAD.
• You do not pay the fee for the Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) if you are not requesting an EAD, regardless of whether you are applying for late initial registration or re-registration.
You must submit both completed application forms together. If you are unable to pay the application forms fee and/or biometrics fee, you may complete a Request for Fee Waiver (Form I-912) or submit a personal letter requesting a fee waiver with satisfactory
Biometrics (such as fingerprints) are required for all applicants 14 years and older. Those applicants must submit a biometric services fee. As previously stated, if you are unable to pay for the biometric services fee, you may complete a Request for Fee Waiver (Form I-912) or submit a personal letter requesting a fee waiver with satisfactory supporting documentation. For more information on the biometric services fee, please visit the USCIS Web site at
You should file as soon as possible within the 60-day re-registration period so USCIS can process your application and issue any EAD promptly. Filing early will also allow you to have time to re-file your application before the deadline, should USCIS deny your fee waiver request. If, however, you receive a denial of your fee waiver request and are unable to re-file by the re-registration deadline, you may still re-file your application. This situation will be reviewed to determine whether you established good cause for late re-registration. However, you are urged to re-file within 45 days of the date on any USCIS fee waiver denial notice, if possible.
Although a re-registering TPS beneficiary age 14 and older must pay the biometric services fee (but not the initial TPS application fee) when filing a TPS re-registration application, you may decide to wait to request an EAD, and therefore not pay the Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) fee until after USCIS has approved your TPS re-registration, if you are eligible. If you choose to do this, you would file the Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821) with the fee and the Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) without the fee and without requesting an EAD.
Mail your application for TPS to the proper address in Table 1.
If you were granted TPS by an Immigration Judge (IJ) or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and you wish to request an EAD or are re-registering for the first time following a grant of TPS by an IJ or the BIA, please mail your application to the appropriate mailing address in Table 1. When submitting a re-registration and/or requesting an EAD based on an IJ/BIA grant of TPS, please include a copy of the IJ or BIA order granting you TPS with your application. This will aid in the verification of your grant of TPS and processing of your application, as USCIS may not have received records of your grant of TPS by either the IJ or the BIA. To get additional information, including the email address of the appropriate Service Center, you may go to the USCIS TPS Web page at
You cannot electronically file your application when re-registering or submitting an initial registration for Sudan TPS. Please mail your application to the mailing address listed in Table 1.
The filing instructions on the Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821) list all the documents needed to establish basic eligibility for TPS. You must also submit two color passport-style photographs of yourself. You may also find information on the acceptable documentation and other requirements for applying or registering for TPS on the USCIS Web site at
If one or more of the questions listed in Part 4, Question 2 of the Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821) applies to you, then you must submit an explanation on a separate sheet(s) of paper and/or additional documentation.
To get case status information about your TPS application, including the status of a request for an EAD, you can check Case Status Online at
Provided that you currently have TPS under the designation of Sudan, this Notice automatically extends your EAD by 6 months if you:
• Are a national of Sudan (or an alien having no nationality who last habitually resided in Sudan);
• Received an EAD under the last extension of TPS for Sudan; and
• Have an EAD with a marked expiration date of May 2, 2016, bearing the notation “A-12” or “C-19” on the face of the card under “Category.”
Although this Notice automatically extends your EAD through November 2, 2016, you must re-register timely for TPS in accordance with the procedures described in this Notice if you would like to maintain your TPS.
You can find a list of acceptable document choices on the “Lists of Acceptable Documents” for Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9). You can find additional detailed information on the USCIS I-9 Central Web page at
You may present any document from List A (reflecting both your identity and employment authorization) or one document from List B (reflecting identity) together with one document from List C (reflecting employment authorization). An EAD is an acceptable document under “List A.” You may present an acceptable receipt for a List A, List B, or List C document as described in the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) Instructions. An acceptable receipt is one that shows an employee has applied to replace a document that was lost, stolen or damaged. If you present an acceptable receipt, you must present your employer with the actual document within 90 days. Employers may not reject a document based on a future expiration date.
If your EAD has an expiration date of May 2, 2016, and states “A-12” or “C-19” under “Category,” it has been extended automatically for 6 months by virtue of this
Even though EADs with an expiration date of May 2, 2016, that state “A-12” or “C-19” under “Category” have been automatically extended for 6 months by this
By November 2, 2016, the expiration date of the automatic extension, your employer must reverify your employment authorization. At that time, you must present any unexpired document from List A or any unexpired document from List C on Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) to reverify employment authorization, or an acceptable List A or List C receipt described in the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) instructions. Your employer is required to reverify on Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) the employment authorization of current employees upon the automatically extended expiration date of a TPS-related EAD, which is November 2, 2016, in this case. Your employer should use either Section 3 of the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) originally completed for the employee or, if this section has already been completed or if the version of Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) is no longer valid, complete Section 3 of a new Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) using the most current version. Note that your employer may not specify which List A or List C document employees must present, and cannot reject an acceptable receipt. An acceptable receipt is one that shows an employee has applied to replace a document that was lost, stolen or damaged.
No. When completing Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9), including reverifying employment authorization, employers must accept any documentation that appears on the “Lists of Acceptable Documents” for Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) that reasonably appears to be genuine and that relates to you or an acceptable List A, List B, or List C receipt. Employers may not request documentation that does not appear on the “Lists of Acceptable Documents.” Therefore, employers may not request proof of Sudanese citizenship or proof of re-registration for TPS when completing Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) for new hires or reverifying the employment authorization of current employees. Refer to the “Note to Employees” section of this Notice for important information about your rights if your employer rejects lawful documentation, requires additional documentation, or otherwise discriminates against you based on your citizenship or immigration status, or your national origin. Note that although you are not required to provide your employer with a copy of this
After November 2, 2016, employers may no longer accept the EADs that this
When using an automatically extended EAD to complete Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) for a new job before November 2, 2016, you and your employer should do the following:
1. For Section 1, you should:
a. Check “An alien authorized to work;”
b. Write the automatically extended EAD expiration date (November 2, 2016) in the first space; and
c. Write your alien number (USCIS number or A-number) in the second space (your EAD or other document from DHS will have your USCIS number or A-number printed on it; the USCIS number is the same as your A-number without the A prefix).
2. For Section 2, employers should record the:
a. Document title;
b. Issuing authority;
c. Document number; and
d. Automatically extended EAD expiration date (November 2, 2016).
By November 2, 2016, employers must reverify the employee's employment authorization in Section 3 of the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9).
If you are an existing employee who presented a TPS-related EAD that was valid when you first started your job but that EAD has now been automatically extended, your employer may reinspect your automatically extended EAD if the employer does not have a photocopy of the EAD on file, and you and your employer should correct your previously completed Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) as follows:
1. For Section 1, you should:
a. Draw a line through the expiration date in the first space;
b. Write “November 2, 2016” above the previous date;
c. Write “TPS Ext.” in the margin of Section 1; and
d. Initial and date the correction in the margin of Section 1.
2. For Section 2, employers should:
a. Draw a line through the expiration date written in Section 2;
b. Write “November 2, 2016” above the previous date;
c. Write “EAD Ext.” in the margin of Section 2; and
d. Initial and date the correction in the margin of Section 2.
By November 2, 2016, when the automatic extension of EADs expires, employers must reverify the employee's employment authorization in Section 3.
If you are an employer who participates in E-Verify and you have an employee who is a TPS beneficiary who provided a TPS-related EAD when he or she first started working for you, you will receive a “Work Authorization Documents Expiring” case alert when this EAD is about to expire. Usually, this message is an alert to complete Section 3 of the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) to reverify an employee's employment authorization. For existing employees with TPS-related EADs that have been automatically extended, employers should dismiss this alert by clicking the red “X” in the “dismiss alert” column and follow the instructions above explaining how to correct the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9). By November 2, 2016, employment authorization must be reverified in Section 3. Employers should never use E-Verify for reverification.
Employers are reminded that the laws requiring proper employment eligibility verification and prohibiting unfair immigration-related employment practices remain in full force. This Notice does not supersede or in any way limit applicable employment verification rules and policy guidance, including those rules setting forth reverification requirements. For general questions about the employment eligibility verification process, employers may call USCIS at 888-464-4218 (TTY 877-875-6028) or email
For general questions about the employment eligibility verification process, you may call USCIS at 888-897-7781 (TTY 877-875-6028) or email
To comply with the law, employers must accept any document or combination of documents from the Lists of Acceptable Documents if the documentation reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to the employee, or an acceptable List A, List B, or List C receipt described in the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) Instructions. Employers may not require extra or additional documentation beyond what is required for Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) completion. Further, employers participating in E-Verify who receive an E-Verify case result of “Tentative Nonconfirmation” (TNC) must promptly inform employees of the TNC and give such employees an opportunity to contest the TNC. A TNC case result means that the information entered into E-Verify from Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) differs from Federal or state government records.
Employers may not terminate, suspend, delay training, withhold pay, lower pay, or take any adverse action against you based on your decision to contest a TNC or because the case is still pending with E-Verify. A Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) case result is received when E-Verify cannot verify your employment eligibility. An employer may terminate employment based on a case result of FNC. Work-authorized employees who receive an FNC may call USCIS for assistance at 888-897-7781 (TTY 877-875-6028). If you believe you were discriminated against by an employer in the E-Verify process based on citizenship or immigration status or based on national origin, you may contact OSC's Worker
While Federal Government agencies must follow the guidelines laid out by the Federal Government, State and local government agencies establish their own rules and guidelines when granting certain benefits. Each State may have different laws, requirements, and determinations about what documents you need to provide to prove eligibility for certain benefits. Whether you are applying for a Federal, State, or local government benefit, you may need to provide the government agency with documents that show you are a TPS beneficiary and/or show you are authorized to work based on TPS. Examples are:
(1) Your unexpired EAD;
(2) A copy of this
(3) A copy of your Application for Temporary Protected Status Notice of Action (Form I-797) for this re-registration;
(4) A copy of your past or current Application for Temporary Protected Status Approval Notice (Form I-797), if you received one from USCIS; and/or
(5) If there is an automatic extension of work authorization, a copy of the fact sheet from the USCIS TPS Web site that provides information on the automatic extension.
Check with the government agency regarding which document(s) the agency will accept. You may also provide the agency with a copy of this
Some benefit-granting agencies use the USCIS Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program (SAVE) to verify the current immigration status of applicants for public benefits. If such an agency has denied your application based solely or in part on a SAVE response, the agency must offer you the opportunity to appeal the decision in accordance with the agency's procedures. If the agency has received and acted upon or will act upon a SAVE verification and you do not believe the response is correct, you may make an InfoPass appointment for an in-person interview at a local USCIS office. Detailed information on how to make corrections, make an appointment, or submit a written request to correct records under the Freedom of Information Act can be found at the SAVE Web site at
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Through this Notice, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announces that the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) is extending the designation of South Sudan for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months, from May 3, 2016 through November 2, 2017, and redesignating South Sudan for TPS for 18 months, effective May 3, 2016 through November 2, 2017.
The extension allows currently eligible TPS beneficiaries to retain TPS through November 2, 2017, so long as they otherwise continue to meet the eligibility requirements for TPS. The redesignation of South Sudan allows additional individuals who have been continuously residing in the United States since January 25, 2016 to obtain TPS, if otherwise eligible. The Secretary determined that an extension of the current designation and a redesignation of South Sudan for TPS are warranted because the ongoing armed conflict and extraordinary and temporary conditions that prompted the 2014 TPS redesignation have persisted, and in some cases deteriorated, and would pose a serious threat to the personal safety of South Sudanese nationals if they were required to return to their country. Although the parties to the conflict signed a peace agreement in August 2015, violence persists in many parts of the country, and the implementation of the peace agreement is halting to date.
Through this Notice, DHS also sets forth procedures necessary for eligible nationals of South Sudan (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in South Sudan) either to: (1) Re-register under the extension if they already have TPS and to apply for renewal of their Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); or (2) submit an initial registration application under the redesignation and apply for an EAD.
For individuals who have already been granted TPS, the 60-day re-registration period runs from January 25, 2016 through March 25, 2016. USCIS will issue new EADs with a November 2, 2017, expiration date to eligible South Sudan TPS beneficiaries who timely re-register and apply for EADs under this extension. Given the timeframes involved with processing TPS re-registration applications, DHS recognizes that not all re-registrants will receive new EADs before their current EADs expire on May 2, 2016. Accordingly, through this Notice, DHS automatically extends the validity of EADs issued under the TPS designation of South Sudan for 6 months, through November 2, 2016, and explains how TPS beneficiaries and their employers may determine which EADs are automatically extended and their impact on Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) and the E-Verify processes.
Under the redesignation, individuals who currently do not have TPS (or an initial TPS application pending) may submit an initial application during the 180-day initial registration period that runs from January 25, 2016 through July 25, 2016. In addition to demonstrating continuous residence in the United States since January 25, 2016 and meeting other eligibility criteria, initial applicants for TPS under this redesignation must demonstrate that they have been continuously physically present in the United States since May 3, 2016, the effective date of this redesignation of South Sudan, before USCIS may grant them TPS.
TPS initial applications that were filed under South Sudan's 2011 designation or the 2013 or 2014 redesignations and remain pending on January 25, 2016 will be treated as initial applications under this redesignation. Individuals who have a pending initial South Sudan TPS application will not need to file a new Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821). DHS provides additional instructions in this Notice for individuals whose TPS applications remain pending and who would like to obtain an EAD valid through November 2, 2017.
• For further information on TPS, including guidance on the application process and additional information on eligibility, please visit the USCIS TPS Web page at
You can find specific information about this extension and redesignation of South Sudan for TPS by selecting “South Sudan” from the menu on the left side of the TPS Web page.
• For questions concerning this FRN, you can also contact the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2060; or by phone at (202) 272-1533 (this is not a toll-free number). Note: The phone number provided here is solely for questions regarding this TPS Notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries.
• Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at
• Further information will also be available at local USCIS offices upon publication of this Notice.
• TPS is a temporary immigration status granted to eligible nationals of a country designated for TPS under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), or to eligible persons without nationality who last habitually resided in the designated country.
• During the TPS designation period, TPS beneficiaries are eligible to remain in the United States, may not be removed, and are authorized to work and obtain EADs so long as they continue to meet the requirements of TPS.
• TPS beneficiaries may also be granted travel authorization as a matter of discretion.
• The granting of TPS does not result in or lead to permanent resident status.
• To qualify for TPS, beneficiaries must meet the eligibility standards at INA section 244(c)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(2).
• When the Secretary terminates a country's TPS designation, beneficiaries return to the same immigration status they maintained before TPS, if any (unless that status has since expired or been terminated), or to any other lawfully obtained immigration status they received while registered for TPS.
On October 13, 2011, the Secretary designated South Sudan for TPS, effective November 3, 2011, based on an ongoing armed conflict and extraordinary and temporary conditions within South Sudan.
Section 244(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1), authorizes the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate agencies of the U.S. Government (Government), to designate a foreign state (or part thereof) for TPS if the Secretary determines that certain country conditions exist.
At least 60 days before the expiration of a country's TPS designation or extension, the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate Government agencies, must review the conditions in a foreign state designated for TPS to determine whether the conditions for the TPS designation continue to be met.
In addition to extending an existing TPS designation, the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate Government agencies, may redesignate a country (or part thereof) for TPS.
When the Secretary designates or redesignates a country for TPS, he also has the discretion to establish the date from which TPS applicants must demonstrate that they have been “continuously resid[ing]” in the United States.
The Secretary has determined that the “continuous residence” date for applicants for TPS under the redesignation of South Sudan shall be January 25, 2016. Initial applicants for TPS under this redesignation must also show they have been “continuously physically present” in the United States since May 3, 2016, which is the effective date of the Secretary's redesignation of South Sudan.
DHS and the Department of State (DOS) have reviewed conditions in South Sudan. Based on the reviews and after consulting with DOS, the Secretary has determined that an 18-month extension and redesignation is warranted because the ongoing armed conflict and extraordinary and temporary conditions that prompted the September 2, 2014 redesignation have persisted, and in some cases deteriorated. In spite of a peace deal signed in August 2015, violence persists in many parts of South Sudan, and the peace agreement itself remains fragile. The current conditions support the expansion of TPS protection to eligible South Sudanese nationals who began residing in the United States between September 2, 2014 and January 25, 2016.
South Sudan is in the midst of a crisis involving a cycle of ethnic violence, allegations of atrocities and a humanitarian disaster of devastating scale. The armed conflict between the Government of South Sudan and opposition groups, which has affected a significant portion of the country, has been defined by ethnic lines and has been marked by brutal violence against civilians. Despite a peace agreement signed in August 2015, the security situation remains uncertain and violence persists in many areas. The humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate, resulting in widespread displacement due to the violence; high rates of death, disease, and injuries; severe food insecurity with a major malnutrition crisis; and disrupted livelihoods.
Longstanding political tensions between President Salva Kiir Mayardit, an ethnic Dinka, and former vice president, Riek Machar Teny, an ethnic Nuer, sparked an outbreak of violence in Juba in December 2013. This outbreak of violence in Juba led to fighting between Nuer and Dinka elements within the regular Sudan People's Liberation Army. Since December 2013, thousands of people have been killed, as fighting broadened and continued along ethnic lines. The violence has flared up again toward the end of April and into May 2015, and in September following the signing of the peace agreement.
South Sudan also remains embroiled in conflict along its border with Sudan. In 2015, Misseriya militias continued to attack Abyei, a disputed border area, sometimes with the backing of the Sudanese Armed Forces.
Both government and opposition forces are alleged to have committed atrocities, including against civilians. The United Nations (UN) and humanitarian actors report that during the 2015 offensive, there have been atrocities including those involving rape, the systematic murder of boys over the age of 10 and the elderly, the forced recruitment and kidnapping of children, and the wholesale destruction and burning of villages. The resulting insecurity in northern and central Unity state has forced relief organizations to withdraw staff, and as of mid-June 2015, has left more than 650,000 civilians in need of emergency support without access to humanitarian assistance.
The overall situation in South Sudan has continued to deteriorate since the civil conflict began in December 2013, with the security, rule of law and human rights situations remaining deeply compromised. South Sudan has not held elections since becoming independent in July 2011. The peace agreement calls for a transitional government to take office and elections in 2018, although the transitional government is not yet in place. The economic situation in South Sudan further contributes to its inability to protect its citizens from the ongoing conflict. Since fighting began in December 2013, economic activity outside the capital city, which was weak at best before the crisis, has all but stopped.
Humanitarian access has been constrained by security incidents against aid staff. Humanitarian workers, both foreign and national, have been targeted and killed, with no reported prosecutions. For the month of March 2015, the UN reported 64 security incidents against humanitarian actors in South Sudan, and both international and South Sudanese non-governmental organizations continue to be targets of crime and violence. Due to ongoing hostilities in Unity state, all non-governmental organizations and UN agencies evacuated staff in May 2015, bringing relief efforts in the area to a halt. Consequently, over 300,000 civilians in need of emergency relief, including food aid and medical services were cut off from life-saving assistance. Violence in Unity state persists in spite of the peace agreement.
According to the UN, over half of the country's 12 million people are in need of aid. The ongoing conflict has caused a continuous flow of internally displaced persons and refugees. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that as of November 2015, approximately 644,000 people have fled South Sudan as a direct result of the ongoing conflict and related food insecurity, in addition to more than 1.6 million South Sudanese who have been internally displaced. These figures are expected to grow even after the signing of the peace agreement. Estimates of the number of people in need of shelter for 2015 include an anticipated 1.95 million internally displaced persons and a projected 293,000 refugees.
Based upon this review and after consultation with appropriate Government agencies, the Secretary has determined that:
• The conditions that prompted the 2014 redesignation of South Sudan for TPS continue to be met.
• There continues to be an ongoing armed conflict in South Sudan and, due to such conflict, requiring the return of South Sudanese nationals (or aliens having no nationality who last
• There continue to be extraordinary and temporary conditions in South Sudan that prevent South Sudanese nationals (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in South Sudan) from returning to South Sudan in safety.
• It is not contrary to the national interest of the United States to permit South Sudanese (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in South Sudan) who meet the eligibility requirements of TPS to remain in the United States temporarily.
• The designation of South Sudan for TPS should be extended for an 18-month period from May 3, 2016 through November 2, 2017.
• Based on current country conditions, South Sudan should be simultaneously redesignated for TPS effective May 3, 2016 through November 2, 2017.
• TPS applicants must demonstrate that they have continuously resided in the United States since January 25, 2016.
• The date by which TPS applicants must demonstrate that they have been continuously physically present in the United States is May 3, 2016, the effective date of the redesignation of South Sudan for TPS.
• There are approximately 50 current South Sudan TPS beneficiaries who are expected to file for re-registration under the extension.
• It is estimated that an additional 25-150 nationals of South Sudan (and persons without nationality who last habitually resided in South Sudan) may be eligible for TPS under the redesignation of South Sudan. This estimate is based on the total number of South Sudanese nationals believed to be in the United States in a nonimmigrant status or without lawful immigration status.
By the authority vested in me as Secretary under INA section 244, 8 U.S.C. 1254a, I have determined, after consultation with the appropriate Government agencies, that the conditions that prompted the redesignation of TPS for South Sudan in 2014 not only continue to be met, but have significantly deteriorated.
If you have been granted TPS under South Sudan's designation, then you must re-register under the extension if you wish to maintain TPS benefits through November 2, 2017. You must use the Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821) to re-register for TPS. The 60-day open re-registration period will run from January 25, 2016 through March 25, 2016.
If your TPS application is still pending on January 25, 2016, then you do
If you are not a South Sudan TPS beneficiary or do not have a pending TPS application with USCIS, you may submit your TPS application during the 180-day initial registration period that will run from January 25, 2016 through July 25, 2016.
To register or re-register for TPS based on the designation of South Sudan, you must submit each of the following applications:
1. Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821).
• If you are filing an initial application, you must pay the fee for the Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821).
• If you are filing an application for re-registration, you do not need to pay the fee for the Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821).
2. Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765).
• If you are applying for initial registration and want an EAD, you must pay the fee for the Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) only if you are age 14 through 65. You do not need to pay the Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) fee if you are under the age of 14 or are 66 and older, applying for late initial registration and you want an EAD.
• If you are applying for re-registration, you must pay the fee for the Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765), regardless of your age, if you want an EAD.
• You do not pay the fee for the Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) if you are not requesting an EAD, regardless of whether you are applying for initial registration or re-registration.
You must submit both completed application forms together. If you are unable to pay for the application fee and/or biometrics fee, you may complete a Request for Fee Waiver (Form I-912) or submit a personal letter requesting a fee waiver with satisfactory supporting documentation. For more information on the application forms and fees for TPS, please visit the USCIS TPS Web page at
Biometrics (such as fingerprints) are required for all applicants 14 years and older. Those applicants must submit a biometric services fee. As previously stated, if you are unable to pay for the biometric services fee, you may complete a Request for Fee Waiver (Form I-912) or submit a personal letter requesting a fee waiver with satisfactory supporting documentation. For more information on the biometric services fee, please visit the USCIS Web site at
If you request a fee waiver when filing your initial TPS application package and your request is denied, you may re-file your application packet before the initial filing deadline of July 25, 2016. If you attempt to submit your application with a fee waiver request before that deadline, and receive your application back with the USCIS fee waiver denial, and there are fewer than 45 days before the filing deadline (or the deadline has passed), you may still re-file your application within the 45-day period after the date on the USCIS fee waiver denial notice. You must include the correct fees or file a new fee waiver request. Your application will not be rejected even if the filing deadline has passed, provided it is mailed within those 45 days and all other required information for the application is included. Please be aware that if you re-file your TPS application packet with a new fee waiver request after the deadline and that your new fee waiver request is denied, you cannot refile again.
You should re-register as soon as possible within the 60-day period so that USCIS can process your application and issue any EAD promptly. Filing early will also allow you time to re-file your application before the deadline, should USCIS deny your fee waiver request. If, however, you receive a denial of your fee waiver request and you are unable to re-file by the re-registration deadline, you may still re-file your application. This situation will be reviewed to determine whether you have established good cause for late re-registration. However, you are urged to re-file within 45 days of the date on any USCIS fee waiver denial notice, if at all possible.
Mail your application for TPS to the proper address in Table 1.
If you were granted TPS by an Immigration Judge (IJ) or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and wish to request an EAD or are re-registering for the first time following a grant of TPS by an IJ or the BIA, please mail your application to the appropriate mailing address in Table 1. When submitting a re-registration and/or requesting an EAD based on an IJ/BIA grant of TPS, Please include a copy of the IJ or BIA order granting you TPS with your application. This will aid in the verification of your grant of TPS and processing of your application, as USCIS may not have received records of your grant of TPS by either the IJ or the BIA.
You cannot electronically file your application when re-registering or submitting an initial registration for South Sudan TPS. Please mail your application to the mailing address listed in Table 1.
To meet the basic eligibility requirements for TPS, you must submit evidence that you:
• Are a national of South Sudan or an alien having no nationality who last habitually resided in South Sudan. Documents may include a copy of your passport if available, other documentation issued by the Government of South Sudan showing your nationality (such as a national identity card or official travel documentation issued by the Government of South Sudan), and/or your birth certificate with English translation accompanied by photo identification. USCIS will also consider certain forms of secondary evidence supporting your South Sudan nationality. If the evidence presented is insufficient for USCIS to make a determination as to your nationality, USCIS may request additional evidence. If you cannot provide a passport, birth certificate with photo identification, or a national identity document with your photo or fingerprint, you must submit an affidavit showing proof of your unsuccessful efforts to obtain such documents and affirming that you are a national of South Sudan. However, please be aware that an interview with an immigration officer will be required if you do not present any documentary proof of identity or nationality or if USCIS otherwise requests a personal appearance.
• Have continuously resided in the United States since January 25, 2016.
• Have been continuously physically present in the United States since May 3, 2016, the effective date of the redesignation of South Sudan for TPS.
You must also submit two color passport-style photographs of yourself. The filing instructions on the Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821) list all the documents needed to establish basic eligibility for TPS. You may also find information on the acceptable documentation and other requirements for applying for TPS on the USCIS Web site at
If one or more of the questions listed in Part 4, Question 2 of the Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821) applies to you, then you must submit an explanation on a separate sheet(s) of paper and/or additional documentation.
To get case status information about your TPS application, including the status of a request for an EAD, you can check Case Status Online, available at
Provided that you currently have TPS under the designation of South Sudan, this Notice automatically extends your EAD by 6 months if you:
• Are a national of South Sudan (or an alien having no nationality who last habitually resided in South Sudan);
• Received an EAD under the last extension of TPS for South Sudan; and
• Have an EAD with a marked expiration date of May 2, 2016, bearing the notation “A-12” or “C-19” on the face of the card under “Category.”
Although this Notice automatically extends your EAD through November 2, 2016, you must re-register timely for TPS in accordance with the procedures described in this Notice if you would like to maintain your TPS.
You can find a list of acceptable document choices on the “Lists of Acceptable Documents” for Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9). You can find additional detailed information on the USCIS I-9 Central Web page at
You may present any document from List A (reflecting both your identity and employment authorization) or one document from List B (reflecting identity) together with one document from List C (reflecting employment authorization). An EAD is an acceptable document under “List A.” You may present an acceptable receipt for List A, List B, or List C documents as described in the Form I-9 Instructions. An acceptable receipt is one that shows an employee has applied to replace a document that was lost, stolen or damaged. If you present this receipt, you must present your employer with the actual document within 90 days. Employers may not reject a document based on a future expiration date.
If your EAD has an expiration date of May 2, 2016, and states “A-12” or “C-19” under “Category,” it has been extended automatically for 6 months by virtue of this
Even though EADs with an expiration date of May 2, 2016, that state “A-12” or “C-19” under “Category” have been automatically extended for 6 months by this
By November 2, 2016, the expiration date of the automatic extension, your employer must reverify your employment authorization. At that time, you must present any unexpired document from List A or any unexpired document from List C on Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) to reverify employment authorization, or an acceptable List A or List C receipt described in the Form I-9 instructions. Your employer is required to reverify on Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) the employment authorization of current employees upon the automatically extended expiration date of a TPS-related EAD, which is November 2, 2016, in this case. Your employer should use either Section 3 of the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) originally completed for the employee or, if this section has already been completed or if the version of Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) is no longer valid, complete Section 3 of a new Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) using the most current version. Note that your employer may not specify which List A or List C document employees must present, and cannot reject an acceptable receipt. An acceptable receipt is one that shows an employee has applied to replace a document that was lost, stolen or damaged.
No. When completing Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9), including reverifying employment authorization, employers must accept any documentation that appears on the “Lists of Acceptable Documents” for Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) that reasonably appears to be genuine and that relates to you or an acceptable List A, List B, or List C receipt. Employers may not request documentation that does not appear on the “Lists of Acceptable Documents.” Therefore, employers may not request proof of South Sudanese citizenship or proof of re-registration for TPS when completing Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) for new hires or reverifying the employment authorization of current employees. Refer to the “Note to Employees” section of this Notice for important information about your rights if your employer rejects lawful documentation, requires additional documentation, or otherwise discriminates against you based on your citizenship or immigration status, or your national origin. Note that although you are not required to provide your employer with a copy of this
After November 2, 2016, employers may no longer accept the EADs that this
When using an automatically extended EAD to complete Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) for a new job before November 2, 2016, you and your employer should do the following:
1. For Section 1, you should:
a. Check “An alien authorized to work;”
b. Write the automatically extended EAD expiration date (November 2, 2016) in the first space; and
c. Write your alien number (USCIS number or A-number) in the second space (your EAD or other document from DHS will have your USCIS number or A-number printed on it; the USCIS number is the same as your A-number without the A prefix).
2. For Section 2, employers should record the:
a. Document title;
b. Issuing authority;
c. Document number; and
d. Automatically extended EAD expiration date (November 2, 2016).
By November 2, 2016, employers must reverify the employee's employment authorization in Section 3 of the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9).
If you are an existing employee who presented a TPS-related EAD that was valid when you first started your job but that EAD has now been automatically extended, your employer may reinspect your automatically extended EAD if the employer does not have a photocopy of the EAD on file, and you and your
1. For Section 1, you should:
a. Draw a line through the expiration date in the first space;
b. Write “November 2, 2016” above the previous date;
c. Write “TPS Ext.” in the margin of Section 1; and
d. Initial and date the correction in the margin of Section 1.
2. For Section 2, employers should:
a. Draw a line through the expiration date written in Section 2;
b. Write “November 2, 2016” above the previous date;
c. Write “EAD Ext.” in the margin of Section 2; and
d. Initial and date the correction in the margin of Section 2.
By November 2, 2016, when the automatic extension of EADs expires, employers must reverify the employee's employment authorization in Section 3.
If you are an employer who participates in E-Verify and you have an employee who is a TPS beneficiary who provided a TPS-related EAD when he or she first started working for you, you will receive a “Work Authorization Documents Expiring” case alert when this EAD is about to expire. Usually, this message is an alert to complete Section 3 of the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) to reverify an employee's employment authorization. For existing employees with TPS-related EADs that have been automatically extended, employers should dismiss this alert by clicking the red “X” in the “dismiss alert” column and follow the instructions above explaining how to correct the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9). By November 2, 2016, employment authorization must be reverified in Section 3. Employers should never use E-Verify for reverification.
Employers are reminded that the laws requiring proper employment eligibility verification and prohibiting unfair immigration-related employment practices remain in full force. This Notice does not supersede or in any way limit applicable employment verification rules and policy guidance, including those rules setting forth reverification requirements. For general questions about the employment eligibility verification process, employers may call USCIS at 888-464-4218 (TTY 877-875-6028) or at
For general questions about the employment eligibility verification process, you may call USCIS at 888-897-7781 (TTY 877-875-6028) or email at
To comply with the law, employers must accept any document or combination of documents from the Lists of Acceptable Documents if the documentation reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to the employee, or an acceptable List A, List B, or List C receipt described in the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) Instructions. Employers may not require extra or additional documentation beyond what is required for Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) completion. Further, employers participating in E-Verify who receive an E-Verify case result of “Tentative Nonconfirmation” (TNC) must promptly inform employees of the TNC and give such employees an opportunity to contest the TNC. A TNC case result means that the information entered into E-Verify from Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) differs from Federal or state government records.
Employers may not terminate, suspend, delay training, withhold pay, lower pay, or take any adverse action against you based on your decision to contest a TNC or because your case is still pending with E-Verify. A Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) case result is received when E-Verify cannot verify your employment eligibility. An employer may terminate employment based on a case result of FNC. Work-authorized employees who receive an FNC may call USCIS for assistance at 888-897-7781 (TTY 877-875-6028). If you believe you were discriminated against by an employer in the E-Verify process based on citizenship or immigration status or based on national origin, you may contact OSC's Worker Information Hotline at 800-255-7688 (TTY 800-237-2515). Additional information about proper nondiscriminatory Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) and E-Verify procedures is available on the OSC Web site at
While Federal Government agencies must follow the guidelines laid out by the Federal Government, State and local government agencies establish their own rules and guidelines when granting certain benefits. Each State may have different laws, requirements, and determinations about what documents you need to provide to prove eligibility for certain benefits. Whether you are applying for a Federal, State, or local government benefit, you may need to provide the government agency with documents that show you are a TPS beneficiary and/or show you are authorized to work based on TPS. Examples are:
(1) Your unexpired EAD;
(2) A copy of this
(3) A copy of your Application for Temporary Protected Status Notice of Action (Form I-797) for this re-registration;
(4) A copy of your past or current Application for Temporary Protected Status Approval Notice (Form I-797), if you received one from USCIS; and/or
(5) If there is an automatic extension of work authorization, a copy of the fact sheet from the USCIS TPS Web site that provides information on the automatic extension.
Check with the government agency regarding which document(s) the agency will accept. You may also provide the agency with a copy of this
Some benefit-granting agencies use the USCIS Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program (SAVE) to verify the current immigration status of applicants for public benefits. If such an agency has denied your application
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice.
The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015, authorizes the Secretary to carry out a demonstration testing the effectiveness of combining vouchers for homeless youth under Family Unification Program authorized under section 8(x) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (“the Act”) with assistance under the Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program authorized under section 23 of the Act. The Secretary was authorized to establish alternative requirements to those contained in section 8(x) of the Act to facilitate the demonstration. This notice provides an alternative requirement to facilitate the operation of this demonstration. Specifically, this notice extends the 18-month time limit to match the length of the FSS contract, typically five years. Implementation of this demonstration will be through a notice issued by the Office of Public and Indian Housing.
Ryan Jones, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-7000; telephone number 202-402-2677 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing and speech-impaired persons may access these numbers through TTY by call the Federal Relay Service as 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).
The comprehensive document titled “Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness” sets the goal of ending homelessness for youth (along with families and children) by the year 2020. FUP is a vital tool in achieving this goal.
In a HUD study of the FUP program, a major barrier to greater youth participation was the time limit on the rental subsidy.
Implementation of this demonstration requires will be through a notice issued by the Office of Public and Indian Housing. Participation in the demonstration requires adherence to the requirements outlined in a Public and Indian Housing notice issued in supplement to this
To facilitate the operation of a FUP demonstration, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015, authorizes the Secretary by
Waiver allowing the extension of the 18-month time limit for FUP assistance to match the length of the FSS contract for youth participating in the demonstration.
Participation in the demonstration requires adherence to the requirements outlined in a Public and Indian Housing notice issued in supplement to this
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Brian Siebentist, Office of Policy and Grant Management, Office of Housing Counseling, at Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in section A on the following: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of the final Comprehensive Conservation plan (CCP) and finding of no significant impact for the environmental assessment for Theodore Roosevelt and Holt Collier National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs), Washington and Sharkey Counties, Mississippi. In the final CCP, we describe how we will manage the two refuges for the next 15 years.
You may obtain a copy of the CCP by downloading the document from our Internet Site at
Mike Rich, Project Leader, at (662) 836-3004 (phone) or
With this notice, we complete the CCP process for Theodore Roosevelt and Holt Collier NWRs. We started the process through a notice in the
The Theodore Roosevelt NWR Complex (Complex) is comprised of seven refuges: Hillside (est. 1975), Holt Collier (est. 2004), Mathews Brake (est. 1980), Morgan Brake (est. 1977), Panther Swamp (est. 1978), Theodore Roosevelt (est. 2004), and Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge (est. 1936).
The Complex was originally known as the Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge Complex and then briefly named the Central Mississippi National Wildlife Refuge Complex. On January 23, 2004, section 145 of Public Law 108-199, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, was signed into law by then President George W. Bush. The Act renamed the Complex as the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex. It designated the geographically separate Bogue Phalia Unit of Yazoo NWR as Holt Collier NWR. The refuge consists of 2,233 acres with an approved acquisition boundary of 18,000 acres. The Service lists its purpose as being designated under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 664): It “shall be administered . . . for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and its habitat thereon.”
The Act also directed the Secretary of the Interior to establish the 6,600-acre Theodore Roosevelt NWR. No additional land was purchased for the two new refuges, but rather they were assembled from disjunct Farm Service Agency (FSA, formerly known as Farmers Home Administration) lands already in Service possession. To date 1,674 acres have been acquired in the Theodore Roosevelt NWR. The Service lists both new refuges as being established “for conservation purposes.”
The habitat consists mainly of converted agricultural lands now reforested to trees more indicative of the native bottomland hardwood forest. Farmlands and open water also occur. The refuge is not open to the public. There are no public facilities located on either refuge.
The National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. CCPs are developed to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuges' purposes and contributing toward the mission of the NWR System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. CCPs describe a broad management direction for conserving wildlife and their habitats. They propose wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities to be made available to the public. These include opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review the CCP annually and revise it as needed in accordance with the Improvement Act.
We made the Draft CCP and Environmental Assessment available online for a 30-day public review and comment period via a
We developed three alternatives for managing the refuge (Alternatives A, B, and C), with Alternative B, Minimally Developed Refuges, selected for implementation. As these are newer refuges authorized by Congress in 2004, the focus of this plan is to develop them. Therefore, our efforts over the next 15 years will be focused on land acquisition to build-out the refuges to their approved acquisition boundaries. Passive habitat protection and the addition of new resource lands beneficial to wildlife will help preserve habitat in perpetuity and to lessen fragmentation. This plan has the objective of providing sanctuary to migratory species as a group, not just priority waterfowl species. White-tailed deer management would continue through the Holt Collier NWR hunt program and eventually at Theodore Roosevelt NWR. Integrated damage control of invasive and nuisance species would lessen the negative effects on the refuges' habitats.
Another primary focus of the plan is to create a visitor services program to enhance environmental education and outreach efforts substantially and to reach larger numbers of residents, students, educators, and visitors. It places priority on wildlife-dependent uses, such as hunting, fishing and wildlife observation. Priority public uses, such as hunting, are allowed at Holt Collier NWR. At a time when sufficient land is amassed and resources are available to allow for ample public use opportunities, Theodore Roosevelt NWR would be opened to hunting. Public use would be phased into both refuges. Compatibility determinations are updated for the priority public uses and for research and monitoring. For both refuges, some commercial uses would be allowed under a Commercial Special Use Permit, including commercial photography, firewood gathering, timber harvest for forest management, and trapping.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 authorized construction of a Visitor Center to provide visitor services and to promote the Delta area's natural resources and cultural heritage. Funding was appropriated in 2009, in the amount of $2.6 million for the building of the Theodore Roosevelt NWR Visitor Center. On February 11, 2015, a total of 6.58 acres (originally proposed as approximately 5 acres) located off of Highway 61 in Sharkey County, Mississippi) was donated to the Service to construct a Visitor Center. A major focus of this plan and Service efforts will be to build and staff the Visitor Center. Since the location is secured for the Visitor Center, regular Service procedures will be followed for building design and construction. Staffing is proposed to run the Visitor Center, to provide environmental and interpretive programs, and to coordinate volunteers. Positions include a Park Ranger, Wildlife Refuge Manager and a Maintenance Worker.
This CCP assumes a modest growth of refuge resources over its 15-year implementation period, with three new positions as new funding is available. Current partnerships would be maintained and new ones would be sought. Daily operation of the refuges will be guided by this CCP and through the implementation of nine projects and six step-down management plans as detailed in the CCP.
This notice is published under the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of the final comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and finding of no significant impact for the environmental assessment for Cat Island National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana. In the final CCP, we describe how we will manage this refuge for the next 15 years.
You may obtain a copy of the CCP by writing to: Lower Mississippi River NWR Complex, P.O. Box 217, Sibley, MS 39165. Alternatively, you may download the document from our Internet Site at
Jimmy Laurent, Project Leader, Lower Mississippi River NWR Complex, by telephone at (601) 442-6696 or by email at
With this notice, we finalize the CCP process for Cat Island NWR. We started the process through a notice in the
Cat Island NWR was established in October 2000, as the 526th refuge in the National Wildlife Refuge System. It is located in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana, near the town of St. Francisville, 25 miles north of Baton Rouge. Acquisition has occurred in stages, beginning in 2000 when The Nature Conservancy (TNC) of Louisiana made the first purchase of about 9,500 acres of forested wetlands. That and subsequent acquisitions by TNC were purchased by the Service using both the Land and Water Conservation Fund and Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. Today, the refuge encompasses 10,473 acres. The congressionally approved acquisition boundary encloses 36,500 acres.
Cat Island NWR was created by Congress through Public Law 106-369, which states: “The purposes for which the Refuge is established and shall be managed are: (1) To conserve, restore, and manage habitats as necessary to contribute to the migratory bird population goals and habitat objective [sic] as established through the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture; (2) to conserve, restore, and manage the significant aquatic resource values associated with the area's forested wetlands and to achieve the habitat objectives of the
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Administration Act.
We made copies of the Draft CCP/EA available for a 30-day public review and comment period via a
We developed three alternatives for managing the refuge (Alternatives A, B, and C), with Alternative B selected for implementation. This alternative will focus on managing the refuge's natural resources to enhance habitats for priority species including waterfowl and other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, species of concern, and resident fish and wildlife. Additionally, wildlife surveys would be conducted using established protocols to establish baseline habitat conditions, estimate wildlife population indices, determine responses to management actions, and contribute to larger scale biological assessments. Invasive exotic and nuisance species would be actively managed to minimize their impacts on refuge resources. Refuge forests would be actively managed to enhance wildlife habitat. Aquatic habitats on the refuge would be inventoried and assessed, and where feasible, access to them would be improved for recreational anglers.
Refuge cultural resources would continue to be protected as they have been in the past. In addition, the refuge would seek funding to survey and catalog cultural resources on the refuge. Protection of cultural resources would be integrated into refuge planning at all levels, and management actions would be reviewed in order to avoid or mitigate impacts to cultural resources.
Under the preferred alternative, public use would be more actively managed by refuge staff. Hunting and fishing would continue to be managed and made available with the active partnership of Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. More law enforcement personnel hours would be allocated by the Service for Cat Island NWR. New partnerships with organizations interested in promoting nonconsumptive refuge use would be sought, and existing ones strengthened. In particular, environmental education opportunities would be enhanced by active participation of Service personnel with local schools and nonprofit organizations.
Refuge infrastructure would be maintained as in the past. The refuge would seek to improve access via the main refuge road and various trails. Efforts would be made to provide access to the northeast section of the refuge, and access via Cat Island Road would be pursued. The refuge would hire or assign staff to the refuge. Staff may include one or more of the following: Refuge manager, volunteer coordinator, equipment operator, law enforcement officer, forester, and biologist. Any or all of these may be shared positions among refuges in the Lower Mississippi River Refuge Complex. Full staffing under this alternative is anticipated to be 1.5 to 2 full-time employees.
This notice is published under the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Department of the Interior.
Notice; request for comments
The Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) is conducting a public review of proposed revisions to the United States Thoroughfare, Landmark and Postal Address Data Standard (Address Data Standard).
The primary purposes of the Address Data Standard are to develop content specifications for address information, provide classifications for different types of addresses, establish appropriate standards and measures for evaluation of address data quality, and support exchange of address data. The FGDC endorsed the Address Data Standard in 2011, and numerous federal, state and local government agencies have since used it to manage their address data. Over the last five years, users and the authors identified a number of desirable minor corrections to the Address Data Standard. Additionally, the U.S. Census Bureau, as the maintenance authority for the Standard, has proposed adding a new Map Position element.
Reviewers are requested to review and comment on the proposed revisions and/or submit additional comments on the Address Data Standard.
The draft revision of the standard may be downloaded from:
The change log lists proposed changes identified since publication of the Address Data Standard in 2011. These changes are reflected in the version of the standard posted for the 2015 maintenance review and are subject to
The proposal for the Map Position element may be downloaded from
Reviewers shall submit comments on the proposed revision of the United States Thoroughfare, Landmark and Postal Address Data Standard to
Reviewers shall submit comments on the United States Thoroughfare, Landmark and Postal Data Standard using the content template format at
Ms. Julie Binder Maitra, FGDC Standards Coordinator, U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Geographic Data Committee,
Proposed revisions to the FGDC-endorsed United States Thoroughfare, Landmark and Postal Data Standard may be categorized as follows:
1. Corrections to typographic and minor grammatical errors, which include misspellings, missing words, etc., in all sections and minor corrections to the .XSD definitional document (for XML data exchange) and SQL code examples found in Part 4: Address Data Quality, Part 5: Data Exchange, and the appendices.
2. Updating of all links and references (URLs, etc.) throughout the Standard to reflect newer versions of other standards, reference documents, etc.
3. A proposal from the U.S. Census Bureau to add a MapPosition element to Part 2: Data Content, to describe the position of an address point. MapPosition allows multiple coordinate positions to be associated with an address. It is a repeatable element consisting of the coordinates of the map representation of an address with a description of the position. Such descriptions could be “Front Door”, “Parcel Centroid”, “Building Centroid”, and “Driveway,” amongst others. The MapPosition proposal may be downloaded from
Comments that concern specific issues/changes/additions may result in changes to the Address Data Standard. After FGDC endorsement of the revisions to the Address Data Standard, the updated Address Data Standard and a change log will be made available to the public on the FGDC Web site,
The FGDC coordinates the Federal government's development of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), which encompasses the policies, standards, and procedures for organizations to cooperatively produce and share geospatial data. Federal agencies that make up the FGDC develop the NSDI in cooperation with organizations from State, local and tribal governments, the academic community, and the private sector. The authority for the FGDC is OMB Circular No. A-16 Revised on Coordination of Geographic Information and Related Spatial Data Activities (Revised August 19, 2002). More information on the FGDC and the NSDI is available at
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice.
The Secretary of the Interior is publishing this notice in accordance with section 10808(d) of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation Water Rights Settlement Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-11) (Settlement Act). Congress enacted the Settlement Act as Title X, Subtitle C of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. The publication of this notice causes the waivers and release of certain claims to become effective as required by the Settlement Act.
This notice is effective January 25, 2016.
Address all comments and requests for additional information to Catherine Wilson, Chair, Duck Valley Water Rights Settlement Implementation Team, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western Region, 2600 N. Central Avenue, 4th Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85004. (602) 379-6789.
The Settlement Act was enacted to resolve the water right claims of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes (Tribes) of the Duck Valley Reservation relative to the upstream water users in the East Fork of the Owyhee River in the State of Nevada (State). The non-federal settling parties submitted a signed Settlement Agreement (Agreement) to Congress prior to enactment of the Settlement Act. As described in section 10802, the purposes of the Settlement Act are:
(1) To resolve outstanding issues with respect to the East Fork of the Owyhee River in the State in such a manner as to provide important benefits to—(A) The United States; (B) the State; (C) the Tribes; and (D) the upstream water users;
(2) to achieve a fair, equitable, and final settlement of all claims of the Tribes, members of the Tribes, and the United States on behalf of the Tribes and members of Tribes to the waters of the East Fork of the Owyhee River in the State;
(3) to ratify and provide for the enforcement of the Agreement among the parties to the litigation;
(4) to resolve the Tribes' water-related claims for damages against the United States;
(5) to require the Secretary to perform all obligations of the Secretary under the Agreement and the Settlement Act; and
(6) to authorize the actions and appropriations necessary to meet the obligations of the United States under the Agreement and the Settlement Act.
In accordance with section 10808(d) of the Settlement Act, I find as follows:
(1) The Agreement and the waivers and releases authorized and set forth in sections 10808(a) and (b) of the Settlement Act have been executed by the parties and the Secretary;
(2) the Fourth Judicial District Court, Elko County, Nevada, has issued a
(3) the amounts authorized under sections 10807(b)(3) and (c)(3) of the Settlement Act have been appropriated.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The General Services Administration (GSA) has filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requesting that the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management extend the duration of the withdrawal created by Public Land Order (PLO) No. 5645 for an additional 20-year term. PLO No. 7336 extended PLO No. 5645, which withdrew approximately 10 acres of public land from surface entry and mining for the protection of the Poker Creek Border Station for an additional 20-year term. PLO No. 7336 also transferred administrative jurisdiction from the U.S. Customs Service to the GSA. The withdrawal extended by PLO No. 7336 will expire on July 18, 2018, unless further extended. This notice provides an opportunity for the public to comment on the withdrawal extension application and to request a public meeting.
Comments and requests for a public meeting must be received by April 25, 2016.
Comments and meeting requests should be sent to the Alaska State Director, BLM Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, No. 13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504.
Renee Fencl, BLM Alaska State Office, 907-271-5067, email
Persons who use a Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The GSA has filed an application requesting that the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management extend the withdrawal created by PLO No. 5645 (43 FR 31006 (1978)), for an additional 20-year term. PLO No. 7336 (63 FR 30511, (1998)), extended PLO No. 5645, which withdrew public lands for the protection of the Poker Creek Border Station, from settlement, sale, location, or entry, under all of the general land laws, including the mining laws for a 20-year term.
PLO No. 5645 is incorporated herein by reference. A complete description, along with all other records pertaining to the extension, can be examined in the BLM Alaska State Office at the address shown above.
Notice is hereby given that an opportunity for a public meeting is afforded in connection with the withdrawal extension application. All interested parties who desire a public meeting for the purpose of being heard on the withdrawal extension application must submit a written request to the BLM Alaska State Director. Upon determination by the authorized officer that a public meeting will be held, the BLM will publish a notice of the time and place in the
The withdrawal extension application will be processed in accordance with the regulations set forth in 43 CFR 2310.4 and subject to Section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, (16 U.S.C. 3120).
For a period until April 25, 2016, all persons who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or objections in connection with the proposed withdrawal extension may present their views in writing to the BLM Alaska State Director at the address indicated above. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Park Service, Interior.
Meeting notices.
As required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (16 U.S.C. Appendix 1-16), the National Park Service (NPS) is hereby giving notice that the Aniakchak National Monument Subsistence Resource Commission (SRC), the Cape Krusenstern National Monument SRC, the Denali National Park SRC, the Gates of the Arctic National Park SRC, the Kobuk Valley National Park SRC, the Lake Clark National Park SRC, and the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park SRC will hold public meetings to develop and continue work on NPS subsistence program recommendations, and other related regulatory proposals and resource management issues. The NPS SRC program is authorized under section 808 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, (16 U.S.C. 3118), title VIII.
The Wrangell-St. Elias National Park SRC will meet on Wednesday, February 24, 2016, and Thursday, February 25, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. or until business is completed at the Gulkana Village Hall in Gulkana Community Hall in Gulkana, AK. For teleconference information and/or to provide written comments, contact Barbara Cellarius, Subsistence Coordinator, at (907) 822-7236 or via email at
For more detailed information regarding these meetings, or if you are interested in applying for SRC membership, contact Designated Federal Official Eric Veach, Acting Superintendent, at (907) 822-5234 or via email at
The Gates of the Arctic National Park SRC will meet from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. or until business is completed on Tuesday, April 26, 2016, and Wednesday, April 27, 2016, at the Anaktuvuk Pass Community Center in Anaktuvuk Pass, AK. For more detailed information regarding the Gates of the Arctic National Park SRC meetings, or if you are interested in applying for SRC membership, contact Designated Federal Official Greg Dudgeon, Superintendent, at (907) 457-5752 or via email at
SRC meeting locations and dates may change based on inclement weather or exceptional circumstances. If the meeting date and location are changed, the Superintendent will issue a press release and use local newspapers and radio stations to announce the rescheduled meeting.
SRC meetings are open to the public and will have time allocated for public testimony. The public is welcome to present written or oral comments to the SRC. SRC meetings will be recorded and meeting minutes will be available upon request from the Superintendent for public inspection approximately six weeks after the meeting. Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Public Notice.
The U.S. Copyright Office is announcing receipt of twelve notices of intent to audit certain 2012 and 2013 statements of account filed by cable operators and satellite carriers pursuant to the section 111 and 119 statutory licenses.
Regan A. Smith, Associate General Counsel, by email at
Sections 111 and 119 of the Copyright Act (“Act”), Title 17 of the United States Code, establish compulsory licenses under which cable operators and satellite carriers may, by complying with the license terms, retransmit copyrighted over-the-air broadcast programming. Among other requirements, cable and satellite licensees must file statements of account and deposit royalty fees with the U.S. Copyright Office (“Office”) on a semi-annual basis.
The Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-175 (2010), amended the Act by directing the Register of Copyrights (“Register”) to issue regulations to allow copyright owners to audit the statements of account and royalty fees that cable operators and satellite carriers file with the Office.
On December 31, 2015, the Office received the below notices of intent to audit statements of account. The notices were submitted jointly by the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, National Football League, National Basketball Association, Women's National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, and National Collegiate Athletics Association pursuant to 37 CFR 201.16(c):
1. Notice of intent to audit the statement of account filed by Verizon New York Inc. for the cable system serving Bethlehem, New York and the surrounding area (Licensing Division No. 63302) for the accounting period July 1-December 31, 2012.
2. Notice of intent to audit the statement of account filed by Time Warner Cable Northeast, LLC for the cable system serving Dewitt, New York and the surrounding area (Licensing Division No. 7857) for the accounting period July 1-December 31, 2013.
3. Notice of intent to audit the statement of account filed by Cequel Communications LLC d/b/a Suddenlink Communications for the cable system serving St. Joseph, Missouri and the surrounding area (Licensing Division No. 7850) for the accounting period January 1-June 30, 2013.
4. Notice of intent to audit the statement of account filed by MCC Missouri, LLC (Columbia, MO) for the cable system serving Columbia, Missouri and the surrounding area (Licensing Division No. 6388) for the accounting period July 1-December 31, 2012.
5. Notice of intent to audit the statement of account filed by DISH Network, LLC (Licensing Division No. USU600) for the accounting period July 1-December 31, 2012.
6. Notice of intent to audit the statement of account filed by Cox Communications Kansas LLC for the cable system serving Dodge City, Kansas and the surrounding area (Licensing Division No. 6293) for the accounting period January 1-June 30, 2013.
7. Notice of intent to audit the statement of account filed by Comcast of Boston Inc. for the cable system serving Boston, Massachusetts and the surrounding communities (Licensing Division No. 1240) for the accounting period July 1-December 31, 2013.
8. Notice of intent to audit the statement of account filed by CC Michigan LLC for the cable system serving Traverse City, Michigan and the surrounding area (Licensing Division No. 7566) for the accounting period January 1-June 30, 2013.
9. Notice of intent to audit the statement of account filed by Cablevision of Monmouth, LLC for the cable system serving Avon Borough, New Jersey and the surrounding area (Licensing Division No. 7823) for the accounting period July 1-December 31, 2012.
10. Notice of intent to audit the statement of account filed by Bright House Communications LLC for the cable system serving Orlando, Florida and the surrounding area (Licensing
11. Notice of intent to audit the statement of account filed by Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T for the cable system serving San Francisco and the surrounding communities (Licensing Division No. 62796) for the accounting period July 1-December 31, 2013.
12. Notice of intent to audit the statement of account filed by DirecTV (Licensing Division No. USU500) for the accounting period July 1-December 31, 2013.
The notices of intent to audit and relevant statements of account are available for onsite viewing at the Copyright Office. Those who wish to inspect these documents can make arrangements to do so using the contact information above.
Marine Mammal Commission.
Correction of notice.
On January 15, 2016, the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) announced in the
Information for accessing the webinar, instructions for informing the Commission of your intent to participate in the webinar, and updates to the agenda, will be posted at
National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Council.
Notice of approval of a U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs proposal requesting access to the Interstate Identification Index with delayed fingerprint submission.
42 U.S.C. 14616.
The National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Council (Compact Council) approves a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) proposal requesting access to the Interstate Identification Index (III) System on a delayed fingerprint submission basis.
Gary S. Barron, FBI CJIS Division, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Module D3, Clarksburg, WV 26306; Telephone (304) 625-2803; email
Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 901, specifically § 901.3, gives authority to the Compact Council, established by the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Act of 1998 (Compact), to approve proposals for delayed submission of fingerprints supporting requests for III records. The proposals must fully describe the emergency nature of the situation, the risk to the health and safety of those involved, and the reasons why contemporaneous fingerprint submission with the search request is not feasible. The BIA proposal makes such an request when conducting criminal history record checks on behalf of federally-recognized tribes, in connection with the placement of children with temporary custodians on an emergency basis. (See BIA's proposal, attached.) Federally-recognized tribes that receive funds under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25, United States Code [U.S.C.], 450, et. seq) or the Tribally Controlled Schools Act (25 U.S.C. 2501, et. seq) are authorized access to criminal history record information pursuant to Public Law 101-630 (25 U.S.C. 3205 and 3207).
The BIA's proposal was submitted by letter dated February 11, 2015, and approved by the Compact Council on May 13, 2015, pursuant to 28 CFR 901.2 and 901.3. Access to the III System to conduct name-based criminal history record checks, followed by fingerprint submissions, provides a responsive and timely avenue to determine whether an applicant presents a risk to children during exigent circumstances when time is of the essence. Such name-based checks will be followed by submission of the applicant's fingerprints to the FBI within 15 calendar days.
National Labor Relations Board.
Notice of Reorganization; Restructuring of National Labor Relations Board's Headquarters' Offices.
Sections 3, 4, 6, and 10 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 3, 4, 6, and 10.
This notice advises the public that the National Labor Relations Board is restructuring and realigning the
These administrative changes are being adopted in order to improve the delivery of services, and streamline, integrate and enhance management functions.
National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street SE., Room 5117, Washington, DC 20570.
William B. Cowen, Solicitor, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street SE., Room 5117, Washington, DC 20570. Telephone: (202) 273-2910 (this is not a toll-free number), 1-866-315-6572 (TTY/TDD).
In 2013, the National Labor Relations Board centralized the services of several Headquarters' offices and restructured them into one independent Division of Legal Counsel with three branches—(1) Contempt, Compliance and Special Litigation, (2) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Branch, and (3) Ethics, Employment and Administrative Law. In addition, it housed a Lead Technology Counsel, who directly reports to the Division Head. When dealing with matters on behalf of the five-member Board or the various Board-side offices, the Division of Legal Counsel coordinates through the Office of the Solicitor. For further information regarding this restructuring please see the related
Experience operating under this new structure has demonstrated that a further restructuring is appropriate. Specifically, Labor Relations and Special Counsel do not fit as well as anticipated in a Division that is typically engaged in casehandling of Board matters and in ancillary litigation that may affect our statutory mission as the staff handles Agency collective bargaining and defense of Agency employee claims. Treating the Labor Relations and Special Counsel staff in a similar manner to the Agency's Office of Equal Employment Opportunity is deemed more appropriate. Further, while government and legal ethics staff performs some functions that assist with casehandling, it predominantly provides guidance that inures to the benefit of Agency employees,
Accordingly, as of the effective date of this notice, the Ethics, Employment and Administrative Law Branch will cease to exist as a branch within the Division of Legal Counsel. Labor Relations and Special Counsel will move from the Division of Legal Counsel to directly report to the Office of the General Counsel and the Chairman as a new office entitled Special Counsel and Labor Relations Office, and Government and Legal Ethics will move from the Division of Legal Counsel to directly report to the Office of the General Counsel and the Chairman as a new office entitled Ethics Office. In addition, an E-Litigation Branch will be created in the Division of Legal Counsel, and the Lead Technology Counsel will continue to directly report to the Associate General Counsel of that Division, and will also supervise and manage a staff. Finally, the Associate General Counsel of the Division of Legal Counsel will act as the Chief FOIA Officer for the Agency.
These administrative changes are being adopted in order to improve the delivery of services, and streamline, integrate and enhance management functions. Because these administrative changes relate to the internal management of the Agency, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, they are exempted from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
By direction of the Board.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Confirmatory order; correction.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is correcting the attachment to a notice that was published in the
The correction is effective January 25, 2016.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0007 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
• 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.
Siva P. Lingam, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1564, email:
In the FR on January 15, 2016, in FR Doc. 2016-00720, on page 2256, in the third column, in the title to the confirmatory order for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, the order number “EA-14-140” is corrected to read order number “EA-14-134.”
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
January 25, February 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, 2016.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 25, 2016.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 1, 2016.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 8, 2016.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 15, 2016.
(Contact: Anita Gray: 301-415-7036).
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the calculation of the assumed Federal income tax on competitive products income for fiscal year (FY) 2015. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3634 and 39 CFR 3060.40
In accordance with 39 CFR 3060.42, the Commission establishes Docket No. T2016-1 to review the calculation of the assumed Federal income tax and supporting documentation.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filing in this docket is consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3634 and 39 CFR 3060.40
The Commission appoints Jennaca D. Upperman to serve as Public Representative in this docket.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. T2016-1 to consider the calculation of the assumed Federal income tax on competitive products for FY 2015.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Jennaca D. Upperman is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than March 24, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Notice.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted the sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Simplification of Disclosure Requirements for Emerging Growth Companies and Forward Incorporation by Reference on Form S-1 for Smaller Reporting Companies,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the emergency processing procedures in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) (“PRA”) and 5 CFR 1320.13. OMB approval has been requested by January 19, 2016. In addition, this notice solicits comment on the three-year extension of the same information collection under 5 CFR 1320.12.
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
OMB Control Numbers 3235-0065 (Form S-1) and 3235-0258 (Form F-1)
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is requesting that OMB authorize emergency processing of the submission of collection of information for “Simplification of Disclosure Requirements for Emerging Growth Companies and Forward Incorporation by Reference on Form S-1 for Smaller Reporting Companies.” This request should also serve to notify the public that the Commission is seeking PRA approval from OMB on an emergency basis for the collections of information associated with the interim final rule amendments to Form S-1 and Form F-1 adopted by the Commission on January 13, 2016
As adopted, the amendments implement Sections 71003 and 84001 of the FAST Act, which require that the Commission revise Forms S-1 and F-1, OMB Control Numbers, 3235-0065 (Form S-1) and 3235-0258 (Form F-1), to permit emerging growth companies to omit financial information for certain historical periods and revise Form S-1 to permit forward incorporation by reference for smaller reporting companies.
Form S-1 (17 CFR 239.11) is the form used by domestic issuers to register the offer and sale of securities under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
The amendments revise Form S-1 and Form F-1 to make them conform to the requirements in Sections 71003 and 84001 of the FAST Act. Section 71003 of the FAST Act allows an emerging growth company that is filing a registration statement (or submitting the registration statement for confidential review) on Form S-1 or Form F-1 to omit financial information for historical periods otherwise required by Regulation S-X if it reasonably believes the omitted information will not be required to be included in the filing at the time of the contemplated offering, so long as the issuer amends the registration statement prior to distributing a preliminary prospectus to include all financial information required by Regulation S-X at the time of the amendment. The amendments revise the general instructions to Form S-1 and Form F-1 to reflect this self-executing change, as directed by Section 71003.
Section 84001 of the FAST Act requires the Commission to revise Form S-1 to permit a smaller reporting company to incorporate by reference into its registration statement any documents filed by the issuer subsequent to the effective date of the registration statement. The amendments add a new paragraph to Item 12 of Form S-1 and make a conforming change to Item 512(a) of Regulation S-K to effect this provision.
The Commission, for good cause, found that notice and comment were unnecessary because the amendments merely conform the specified forms to the requirements of a newly enacted statute, the FAST Act. The amendments revised the Commission's forms to make them consistent with the provisions of the FAST Act pertaining to simplified disclosure requirements for emerging growth companies and forward incorporation by reference for smaller reporting companies on Form S-1 and therefore did not involve the exercise of Commission discretion. Section 71003 of the FAST Act was effective 30 days after enactment, and Section 84001 required the Commission to revise Form S-1 within 45 days of enactment. The Commission also found there was good cause for the amendments to take effect on January 19, 2016 because without the amendments the Commission's applicable forms did not conform to the requirements of Sections 71003 and 84001 of the FAST Act. Additionally, the Commission found that the amendments relieve restrictions in the Commission's forms.
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 if the collection of information does not display a valid OMB 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,
For purposes of the PRA, we estimate the total annual decrease in the paperwork burden for all affected issuers to comply with our collection of information requirements to be approximately 70,214 hours of company personnel time and the reduction in cost to be approximately $84,256,400 for the services of outside professionals. These estimates include the time and cost of preparing and reviewing disclosure, filing documents, and retaining records. We estimate that 25% of the burden of preparation is carried by the issuer internally and is reflected in hours, and that 75% of the burden is carried by outside professionals retained by the issuer at an average cost of $400 per hour.
For purposes of the PRA, we estimate that the amendment to allow emerging growth companies to omit financial information for historical periods that the issuer reasonably believes will not be required to be included in the Form S-1 or F-1 at the time of the contemplated offering would reduce incrementally the annual paperwork burden by approximately 17,089 hours of issuer personnel time and by a cost of approximately $20,506,400 for the services of outside professionals. The estimate reflects the reduction in disclosure preparation time resulting from the omission of one year of audited financial statements
For purposes of the PRA, we estimate that all smaller reporting companies will take advantage of the election to forward incorporate by reference. We estimate that the amendments to permit smaller reporting companies to incorporate by reference into the prospectus contained in the registration statement on Form S-1 all documents subsequently filed by the issuer with the Commission after the effective date of the registration statement would reduce incrementally the annual paperwork burden by approximately 53,125 hours of issuer personnel time and by a cost of approximately $63,750,000 for the services of outside professionals. The estimate reflects the decrease in disclosure preparation time by eliminating the need to file certain post-effective amendments when that information is disclosed in Exchange Act filings after the effectiveness of the Form S-1. We estimate that forward incorporation by reference would reduce the paperwork burden in Form S-1 for smaller reporting companies by 212,500 hours on the assumption that the burden to complete a Form S-1 that incorporates by reference would be the same as the burden currently imposed by Form S-3 (472 hours). Therefore, the amount of time eliminated for each Form S-1 that incorporates by reference would be 500 hours (972 hours for a Form S-1 that does not incorporate information by reference minus 472 hours for a Form S-1 that does incorporate information by reference).
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to make nonsubstantive, clarifying amendments to several rules relating to clearing of Exchange options transactions.
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
The Exchange proposes to make minor nonsubstantive amendments to four rules relating to options clearing responsibilities of members. The changes are intended to correct minor drafting errors, and to update and improve readability of the rules. The Exchange is also proposing to extend applicability of a rule concerning violations of The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) rules to off-floor transactions as well as to on-floor transactions.
Phlx Rule 1046, Clearing Arrangements, currently provides that a member or member organization conducting an options business must either be: (i) A clearing member of OCC; or (ii) have a clearing arrangement with an Exchange member organization that is a clearing member of OCC. The Exchange is revising the rule to simply state that a member or member organization conducting an options business must be a Clearing Member or have a clearing arrangement with a Clearing Member. The revision simply makes use of the existing defined term “Clearing Member”
Phlx Rule 1050, Violation Of By-Laws And Rules Of Options Clearing Corporation, currently provides for Exchange penalties in the event a member, member organization or director of a member organization that is a corporation “shall be adjudged guilty in a proceeding under Article XVIII of the by-laws of a violation of any provision of the rules of the Options Clearing Corporation with respect to the reporting, clearance or settlement of any transaction on the options trading floor of this Corporation. . . . ” The Exchange is deleting the reference to a proceeding under Article XVIII of the by-laws, which the Exchange deleted in 2011,
Phlx Rule 1052, Responsibility Of Clearing Options Members For Exchange Options Transactions, currently provides for the clearing of transactions of non-Clearing Members by a “member organization which is a clearing member of the Options Clearing Corporation. . . .” The Exchange again is replacing this quoted language with the more succinct defined term “Clearing Member.”
Finally, Rule 1054, Verification Of Trades And Reconciliation Of Uncompared Trades, imposes certain trade verification and reconciliation obligations on any “member organization which is a clearing member of the Options Clearing Corporation.” Once again the Exchange is replacing the cumbersome language in quotation marks with the succinct, defined term “Clearing Member.” The change is made simply to improve readability.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act
With respect to Rules 1046, 1052 and 1054, employing the defined term “Clearing Member” rather than “a clearing member of the Options Clearing Corporation” shortens the rule and makes it more readable. With respect to Rule 1050, deletion of a reference to a nonexistent provision of the Exchange's bylaws and replacing it with a general reference to the Exchange's disciplinary proceedings should make the rule more understandable. Additionally with respect to Rule 1050, extending the applicability of the rule to off-floor transactions as well as to on-floor transactions should incentivize those who engage in off-floor transactions to comply with OCC rules, which is in the public interest.
The Exchange does not believe that the clarifying amendments proposed herein will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act inasmuch as they simply improve the accuracy and readability of the rules. Additionally, Rule 1050, as amended, will apply to members transacting off the trading floor as well as those transacting on the trading floor, which should reduce a burden on competition on members who transact primarily on the trading floor and also on members of other markets whose rules require compliance with OCC rules in connection with transactions not occurring on a trading floor.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(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: (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”)
FINRA is proposing to (i) delete from the FINRA rulebook Rule 4552, which requires each alternative trading system (“ATS”) that has filed a Form ATS with the SEC to report to FINRA weekly volume information and number of trades regarding equity securities transactions within the ATS; (ii) amend Rules 6110 and 6610 to add provisions regarding FINRA's publication of ATS volume and trade count information for equity securities, including information similar to what is currently reported by ATSs pursuant to Rule 4552 as well as information regarding ATS block transactions; and (iii) amend Rules 6183 and 6625 to require ATSs seeking an exemption from FINRA trade reporting rules to provide FINRA with a link to a publicly-available Web site that displays their weekly equity volume information in a format substantially similar to that used by FINRA.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On January 17, 2014, the SEC approved a proposed rule change to (i) adopt Rule 4552 (Alternative Trading
Rule 4552 requires individual ATSs to submit weekly reports to FINRA regarding equity security volume information within the ATS, including share volume and number of trades for both NMS stocks and OTC Equity Securities.
Rule 4552 also specifies how an ATS should calculate its volume to ensure consistency and to avoid potential over-counting and requires that, “[w]hen calculating and reporting the volume of securities traded and the number of trades, an alternative trading system shall include only those trades executed within the alternative trading system. If two orders are crossed by the alternative trading system, the volume shall include only the number of shares crossed as a single trade (
In addition to the reporting requirements under Rule 4552, the MPID Rules generally require that a member operating an ATS obtain for each such ATS a single, unique MPID that is designated for exclusive use for reporting each ATS's transactions.
Under FINRA's trade reporting rules, orders that are crossed by an ATS are reported to the appropriate FINRA trade reporting facility by the ATS.
For most weeks since the implementation of the MPID Requirement, over 75% of ATSs have exact matches between self-reported data and trade reporting data, and there has been a 99.99% overall match rate between self-reported ATS volume and trade reporting volume for ATSs that submit trade reports on the same basis that they calculate volume information pursuant to Rule 4552.
Based on this comparison over the past several months, FINRA believes that, going forward, disseminating ATS volume information based on trade reporting data, rather than self-reported data, will provide a more accurate calculation of ATS volume. Consequently, the proposed rule change replaces the ATS reporting obligations in Rule 4552 with a dissemination provision in Rule 6110 (for NMS stocks) and Rule 6610 (for OTC Equity Securities). The information disseminated by FINRA under the Rules will be substantially the same as that currently disseminated under Rule 4552; however, with the exception of Exempt ATSs, the obligation to calculate the information will shift from the ATSs to FINRA. As discussed below and noted above, however, some of the data calculations will change for ATSs that match orders using an Exempt ATS and ATSs that otherwise have unique trade reporting situations that result in trade reporting data not aligning with the ATS's current calculation methodology under Rule 4552.
By shifting ATS volume calculations from self-reported ATS data to trade reporting data, FINRA will not have transaction information for Exempt ATSs because they do not report trades to FINRA under existing exemptive rules.
Because the amendments to Rules 6183 and 6625 incorporate the calculation provisions from Rule 4552, the calculation of Exempt ATS volume information will not change as a result of the proposed rule change; however, the information will be published by the Exempt ATS with a link from FINRA's Web site rather than be reported to FINRA and displayed directly on FINRA's Web site. By shifting the basis of ATS Data from self-reported data to trade reporting data, the calculations, and thus the displayed data, will change primarily for those ATSs that currently exclude transactions involving Exempt ATSs from their reports under Rule 4552. These ATSs report trades to FINRA using their ATS MPID (including those trades that are matched through an Exempt ATS); consequently, those trades involving Exempt ATSs that are currently excluded pursuant to Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 4552 will be included in the volume calculations once the calculations are based on trade reporting data.
With the implementation of the MPID Requirement, FINRA now has access to trade-by-trade reporting data from ATSs. The MPID Requirement also allows FINRA to aggregate and categorize ATS trading data in additional ways, and FINRA has been considering additional data that may be useful to investors and the public, particularly with respect to larger-sized, or “block,” trades.
Although FINRA will announce in a
For each of these thresholds, FINRA intends to publish trade count and volume information for each ATS aggregated across all NMS stocks. As a convenience for users, FINRA also anticipates calculating and displaying the average trade size and each ATS's rank as well as block market share (
FINRA believes that ATS block trading data will be helpful for firms to inform their routing decisions and that FINRA's data, because it would be based on the trade reports submitted by the ATSs, would be more accurate and complete than existing sources of this information. In addition, FINRA believes that monthly aggregated data across all NMS stocks published on a one-month delayed basis will avoid any potential information leakage concerns.
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The implementation date for the deletion of Rule 4552, the amendments to Rules 6183 and 6625, and the publication of ATS volume and trade count information (except for ATS block data) pursuant to the amendments to Rules 6110 and 6610 will be February 9, 2016. Consequently, ATSs will be required to calculate their volume information pursuant to Rule 4552 through January 31, 2016, and will have until February 9, 2016, to report this data to FINRA.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
FINRA notes that the publication of ATS block trading information as
The proposed rule change would expand the benefits of FINRA's ATS transparency program by providing additional transparency on monthly aggregate block trading on ATSs. The additional information may help market participants and investors to enhance their understanding of trading activity on ATSs and inform routing decisions based on this information. As discussed above, the proposal to publish ATS block trading volume would not impose any additional reporting requirements on firms, and as a result would have no direct impact on firms. Some firms may choose to incur costs to verify the information FINRA publishes, but these cost are voluntary and are also likely to be minimal.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received. As noted above, however, FINRA received written comments on the proposed rule change to adopt Rule 4552 and the MPID Requirement, many of which requested that FINRA eliminate Rule 4552 once the MPID Requirement was implemented and functioning as intended.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 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.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Vadda Energy Corp. (CIK No. 1082492), a Florida corporation with its principal place of business listed as Flower Mound, Texas with stock quoted on OTC Link (previously `Pink Sheets') operated by OTC Markets Group Inc. (`OTC Link') under the ticker symbol VDDA, because it has not filed any periodic reports since it filed its registration statement on September 30, 2013. On October 9, 2015, a delinquency letter was sent by the Division of Corporation Finance to Vadda Energy requesting compliance with its periodic filing obligations, and Vadda Energy received the delinquency letter on October 15, 2015, but failed to cure its delinquencies.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company.
Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on January 21, 2016, through 11:59 p.m. EST on February 3, 2016.
By the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that Escalate Capital Partners SBIC III, L.P., 300 W. 6th Street, Suite 2230, Austin, TX 78701, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR part 107). Escalate Capital Partners SBIC III, L.P. proposes to provide debt financing to Everspring, Inc., 1007 Church Street, Suite 420, Evanston, IL 60201. UTIMCO, an Associate of Escalate Capital Partners SBIC III, L.P., holds an indirect ownership interest in Everspring, Inc. of greater than 10 percent. Therefore, Everspring, Inc. is an Associate of Escalate Capital Partners SBIC III, L.P.
The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a) of the Regulations because Everspring, Inc. is an Associate of Escalate Capital Partners SBIC III, L.P. Therefore this transaction requires a prior SBA exemption.
Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of this publication, to the Associate Administrator for Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.
Department of State.
Notice.
On May 23, 2014, the Department of State (Department) issued two Presidential Permits to Plains LPG Services, L.P. (Plains LPG) based on Plains LPG's acquisition of six existing pipelines under the St. Clair River and one existing pipeline under the Detroit River. Plains LPG had applied for new permits reflecting its ownership of the pipeline facilities, but it did not seek any change or expansion of the previous authorizations for the pipelines' use. The Presidential Permits issued in 2014 were intended to mirror previous authorizations from the 1970s, but the Department's records were incomplete, particularly with regard to the six pipelines under the St. Clair River in the vicinity of Marysville, Michigan. While Plains LPG's application asserted that the appropriate authorization was for the transport of any “liquefied hydrocarbons,” the Department issued one permit in 2014 for all of the St. Clair facilities authorizing the transport of “light liquid hydrocarbons,” which reflected the Department's understanding of how the St. Clair pipelines were actually used in the 1970s and more recently.
After the new permits were issued, Plains LPG provided new information that alters the Department's understanding of the historic authorization for two of the six St. Clair pipelines. These two pipelines were constructed in 1918; they have an outer diameter of eight inches and have subsequently been fitted with five-inch diameter liners. Specifically, Plains LPG provided the Department with copies of correspondence from 1971 between the Department and Dome Petroleum Corp. (the previous owner). In that correspondence Dome informed the Department that it had acquired the two St. Clair pipelines and that it planned to use them to transport “crude and other liquid hydrocarbons.” The Department wrote back to Dome acknowledging the letter and the company's plans. The 1918 Presidential Permit had authorized the transport of crude oil.
In light of this additional information, the Department is revisiting Plains LPG's 2012 application and considering whether to issue a new permit for these two St. Clair pipelines that would authorize the transport of crude and other liquid hydrocarbons, superseding the authorization in the 2014 Presidential Permit for the transport of only light liquid hydrocarbons. The Department published in the
Plains LPG is a Texas limited partnership with its principal place of business at 333 Clay Street, Suite 1600, Houston, Texas 77002. Plains LPG is a subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., a publicly traded master limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and headquartered in Houston, Texas.
The Department's consideration of the Presidential Permit for the St. Clair pipeline facilities is pursuant to E.O. 13337, which delegates to the Secretary of State the President's authority to receive applications for permits for the construction, connection, operation, or maintenance of a range of facilities at the borders of the United States, including pipelines for liquid petroleum products, and to issue or deny such Presidential Permits upon a national interest determination. The Department also is soliciting the views of concerned federal agencies. Consistent with E.O. 13337, the Department will determine whether issuance of a new Presidential Permit for two of the St. Clair Pipeline border facilities, as discussed in this notice, would serve the U.S. national interest.
Interested parties are invited to submit comments within 30 days of the publication date of this notice on
Comments are not private. They will be posted on the site. The comments will not be edited to remove identifying or contact information, and the State Department cautions against including any information that one does not want publicly disclosed. The State Department requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments received from other persons for submission to the State Department inform those persons that the State Department will not edit their comments to remove identifying or contact information.
Office of Energy Diplomacy, Energy Resources Bureau (ENR/EDP/EWA) Department of State 2201 C St. NW., Ste 4428, Washington, DC 20520, Attn: Sydney Kaufman, Tel: 202-647-2041. Email:
Additional information concerning the St. Clair pipeline facilities can be found at
Department of State.
Notice.
To comply with the Presidential Memorandum entitled “Preparing for the Implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action of July 14, 2015” issued on October 18, 2015 and to give effect to the United States commitment under Section 4.8.1 of Annex II and Section 17.3 of Annex V of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Secretary of State has taken action pursuant to Section 9(b) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-172) (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) (“ISA”), as amended, to discontinue the imposition of sanctions on the following individuals and entities sanctioned under section 5(a) of ISA: Dimitris Cambis, FAL Oil Company Limited, Ferland Company Limited, Impire Shipping, Kuo Oil Pte. Ltd, Naftiran Intertrade Company, Petrochemical Commercial Company International, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A., Royal Oyster Group, Speedy Ship, and Zhuhai Zhenrong Company and the following entities sanctioned under Section 212 of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012: Bimeh Markazi—Central Insurance of Iran and Kish Protection and Indemnity. The Secretary of State has also taken action to discontinue the imposition of sanctions under E. O. 13622 (July 30, 2012), as amended, on the following entities: Jam Petrochemical Company and Niksima Food and Beverage JLT. Finally, the Secretary of State has taken action pursuant to Section 1244(i)of the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (subtitle D of title XII of Pub. L. 112-239, 22 U.S.C. 8801
On general issues: Office of Sanctions Policy and Implementation, Department of State, Telephone: (202) 647-7489.
Relevant agencies and instrumentalities of the United States Government shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this notice.
The following constitutes a list, as of the effective date of these actions, of persons on whom sanctions are imposed under ISA. The particular sanctions imposed on an individual person are identified in the relevant
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to revise a previously approved information collection. Part A of subtitle VII of the Revised title 49 U.S.C. authorizes the issuance of regulations governing the use of navigable airspace. Information is collected to determine compliance with Federal regulations. This revision addresses requirements from the Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) Rule, RIN 2120-AJ94.
Written comments should be submitted by March 25, 2016.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 441, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
Ronda Thompson by email at:
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) is incorporated in our regulations, approved by FHWA, and recognized as the national standard for traffic control devices used on all streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public travel. This notice terminates the Interim Approval for Use of Clearview Font for Positive Contrast Legends on Guide Signs (IA-5), issued September 2, 2004, as authorized by Section 1A.10 of the MUTCD, and discontinues the provisional use of an alternative lettering style in traffic control device applications. The result of this termination rescinds the use of letter styles other than the FHWA Standard Alphabets on traffic control devices, except as provided otherwise in the MUTCD. Existing signs that use the provisional letter style and comply with the Interim Approval are unaffected by this action and may remain as long as they are in serviceable condition. This action does not create a mandate for the removal or installation of any sign. This action does not amend any provision of the MUTCD.
Effective 30 days after publication in the
For questions about this notice, contact Mr. Kevin Sylvester, MUTCD Team Leader, FHWA Office of Transportation Operations, (202) 366-2161, or via email at
Numerous research efforts have taken place over the last 15 years with the goal of improving the legibility of highway signs. One area of focus has been on guide signs. As a result of some early studies,
The presence and availability of two separate letter styles with differing criteria have resulted in significant confusion and inconsistency in highway sign design, fabrication processes, and application. Although the terms of FHWA's 2004 Interim Approval are explicit, misunderstandings and misapplications of the provisional letter style have resulted. Inconsistent sign design practices are becoming more common and may have coincided with the provisional allowance of an alternative lettering style due to a lack of consistent implementation and inaccurate presumptions that lesser sign design criteria, such as reduced interline and edge spacing, are broadly acceptable. Additionally, many agencies believed that the alternative lettering style should be used in all applications and that all lettering should be displayed in upper and lowercase lettering, regardless of the type of message. There is also considerable confusion that the requirement of the MUTCD to display destination and street names in upper and lowercase lettering equates to the use of the provisional lettering style rather than the Standard Alphabets. In actuality, there is no interdependency between letter style and case.
Uniformity in the display of traffic control devices is central to the underlying foundation of the MUTCD. As such, FHWA establishes the criteria therein with uniformity in mind. This uniformity extends not only to the content of the message displayed, but also to the format and appearance of the display itself. Although seldom specifically identifiable by the motorist, non-uniformity of a sign display or sequence of signs might exhibit itself in less direct ways, such as diminished legibility requiring additional glance time directed toward a sign or group of signs instead of toward the traffic on the road.
The FHWA is committed to exploring solutions that can significantly contribute to enhanced road user safety and are readily and feasibly implemented. In this particular case, there is no benefit of the alternative method that cannot be similarly achieved within the established practice. In many cases, the established practice actually demonstrated benefits that the alternative could not achieve. The FHWA believes that devoting further resources to the development of an alternative will not yield dramatically different results that would warrant an institutional change.
Based on these findings, FHWA does not intend to pursue further consideration, development, or support of an alternative letter style. Accordingly, FHWA discontinues further implementation of an alternative letter style and terminates and rescinds the Interim Approval for new signing installations, except as otherwise provided in the MUTCD. Existing signs that use the provisional letter style and comply with the Interim Approval are unaffected by this action and may remain as long as they are in serviceable condition. This action does not create a mandate for the removal or installation of any sign. This action does not amend any provision of the MUTCD.
23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 109(d), 114(a), 217, 315, and 402(a); 23 CFR 1.32; and, 49 CFR 1.85.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. 2, that the National Research Advisory Council will hold a meeting on Wednesday, March 2, 2016, in Room 730 at 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will convene at 9:00 a.m. and end at 3:30 p.m., and is open to the public. Anyone attending must show a valid photo ID to building security and be escorted to the meeting. Please allow 15 minutes before the meeting begins for this process.
No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. Members of the public wanting to attend, or needing further information may contact Pauline Cilladi-Rehrer, Designated Federal Officer, ORD (10P9), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, at (202) 443-5607, or by email at
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Final rule.
On April 1, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to establish new definitions and a new test procedure for pumps. That proposed rulemaking serves as the basis for this final rule. This final rule establishes a new test procedure for pumps, as well as associated definitions and parameters that establish the scope of applicability of the test procedure. Specifically, the pumps test procedure adopted in this final rule incorporates by reference the test procedure from the Hydraulic Institute (HI)—standard 40.6-2014, “Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing”—with several clarifications and modifications, related to measuring the hydraulic power, shaft power, and electric input power of pumps, inclusive of electric motors and any continuous or non-continuous controls. The new pumps test procedure will be used to determine the constant load pump energy index (PEI
The effective date of this rule is February 24, 2016. Compliance with the final rule will be mandatory for representations of PEI
The docket, which includes
A link to the docket Web page can be found at:
For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-6590. Email:
Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6111. Email:
This final rule incorporates by reference into 10 CFR part 431 the following industry standards:
(1) FM Class Number 1319, “Approval Standard for Centrifugal Fire Pumps (Horizontal, End Suction Type),” approved January 2015.
Copies of FM Class Number 1319 can be obtained from: FM Global, 1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike, P.O. Box 9102, Norwood, MA 02062, (781) 762-4300, or by visiting
(2) American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 (“ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014”), “American National Standard for Rotodynamic Centrifugal Pumps for Nomenclature and Definitions;” approved October 30, 2014, sections 1.1, “Types and nomenclature,” and 1.2.9, “Rotodynamic pump icons.”
(3) ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 (“ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 ”), “American National Standard for Rotodynamic Vertical Pumps of Radial, Mixed, and Axial Flow Types for Nomenclature and Definitions,” approved April 8, 2014, section 2.1, “Types and nomenclature.”
(4) HI 40.6-2014, (“HI 40.6-2014”) “Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing,” (except for section 40.6.5.3, “Test report;” Appendix A, section A.7, “Testing at temperatures exceeding 30 °C (86 °F);” and Appendix B, “Reporting of test results (normative);”) copyright 2014.
Copies of ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014, ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014, and HI 40.6-2014 can be obtained from: the Hydraulic Institute at 6 Campus Drive, First Floor North, Parsippany, NJ 07054-4406, (973) 267-9700, or by visiting
(5) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 20-2016, “Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection,” 2016 Edition, approved June 15, 2015.
Copies of NFPA 20-2016 can be obtained from: the National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169, (617) 770-3000, or by visiting
(6) UL 488, (“ANSI/UL 448-2013”), “Standard for Safety Centrifugal Stationary Pumps for Fire-Protection Service,” 10th Edition, June 8, 2007, including revisions through July 12, 2013.
Copies of ANSI/UL448-2013 can be obtained from: UL, 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062, (847) 272-8800, or by visiting
This material is also available for inspection at U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, Sixth Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, or at
See section IV.N. for additional information about these standards.
Pumps are included in the list of “covered equipment” for which the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) However, there are not currently any Federal energy conservation standards or test procedures for pumps. The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish test procedures for pumps and relevant background information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for this equipment.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Public Law 94-163, as amended by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, Sec. 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment under Title III, Part C (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified)
Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA, (42 U.S.C. 6295(s) and 6316(a)(1)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.
DOE is authorized to prescribe energy conservation standards and corresponding test procedures for statutorily covered equipment such as pumps. While DOE is currently evaluating whether to establish energy conservation standards for pumps (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031), DOE must first establish a test procedure that measures the energy use, energy efficiency, or estimated operating costs of such equipment.
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered equipment. EPCA provides that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results that measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use, and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
In addition, before prescribing any final test procedures, DOE must publish proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)(1)-(2))
In this final rule, DOE is establishing a test procedure for pumps concurrent with its ongoing energy conservation standards rulemaking for this equipment (
The pumps test procedure adopted in this final rule includes methods required to (1) measure the performance of the covered equipment and (2) use the measured results to calculate a pump energy index (PEI
Manufacturers will be required to make all representations of pump efficiency, overall (wire-to-water) efficiency, bowl efficiency, driver power input, pump power input (brake or shaft horsepower), and/or pump power output (hydraulic horsepower) using methods that will generate values consistent with the DOE test procedure beginning 180 days after the publication date of this final rule in the
DOE does not currently regulate pumps. In 2011, DOE issued a Request for Information (RFI) to gather data and information related to pumps in anticipation of initiating rulemakings to formally consider test procedures and energy conservation standards for this equipment. 76 FR 34192 (June 13, 2011). In February 2013, DOE published a Notice of Public Meeting and Availability of the Framework document to initiate an energy conservation standard rulemaking for pumps (78 FR 7304 Feb. 1, 2013) and
Following the pumps Framework public meeting, DOE convened a Commercial and Industrial Pumps Working Group (“CIP Working Group” or, in context, “Working Group”) through the Appliance Standards Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) to negotiate standards and test procedures for pumps as an alternative to the traditional notice and comment rulemaking process that DOE had already begun. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039)
Following approval of the Working Group recommendations, DOE published a NOPR implementing the recommendations of the CIP Working Group
DOE's test procedure for pumps, adopted in this final rule, reflects certain recommendations of the CIP Working Group, as well as input from interested parties received in response to the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR. Provisions of this final rule that are directly pertinent to any of the 14 approved Working Group recommendations will be specified with a citation to the specific recommendation number (for example: Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #X at p. Y). Additionally, in developing the provisions of this final rule, DOE also has referenced discussions from the CIP Working Group meetings regarding potential actions or comments that may not have been formally approved as part of the Working Group recommendations. These references to discussions or suggestions of the CIP Working Group not found in the Working Group recommendations will have a citation to meeting transcripts (for example: Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. X at p. Y).
Finally, in this final rule, DOE responds to all comments received from interested parties in response to the proposals presented in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, either during the April 2015 NOPR public meeting or in subsequent written comments. In response to the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE received eight written comments in addition to the verbal comments made by interested parties during the April 2015 NOPR public meeting. The commenters included: Wilo USA, LLC (Wilo); the Hydraulic Institute (HI); the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA); the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), and Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), collectively referred to herein as the energy efficiency advocates (EEAs); the Air-Conditioning, Heating, & Refrigeration Institute (AHRI); the Association of Pool & Spa Professionals (APSP); Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Gas Company (SCG), Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E), collectively referred to herein as the CA IOUs. DOE will identify comments received in response to the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR by the commenter, the number of document as listed in the docket maintained at
In this final rule, DOE is establishing a new subpart Y to part 431 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations that contains definitions and a test procedure applicable to pumps. This final rule also contains sampling plans for pumps for the purposes of making representations regarding the energy consumption of applicable pumps and demonstrating compliance with any energy conservation standards that DOE adopts.
DOE notes that equipment meeting the pump definition is already covered equipment. In this final rule, DOE is establishing definitions for the term pump, certain pump components, and several categories and configurations of pumps. While the range of equipment included in DOE's definition of pump is broad, the test procedure established by this rulemaking is limited to a specific scope of pumps, as described in section III.A of this final rule; specifically certain kinds of rotodynamic pumps
DOE's approach adopted in this final rule establishes a new metric, the pump energy index (PEI), to rate the energy performance of pumps subject to this test procedure. The test procedure contains methods for determining constant load pump energy index (PEI
The test procedure contains methods to determine the appropriate index for all equipment for which this test procedure applies using either calculation-based methods and/or testing-based methods. While both methods include some amount of testing and some amount of calculation, the terms “calculation-based” and “testing-based” are used to distinguish between methods in which the input power to the pump is determined either by (a) measuring the bare pump shaft input power
The test procedure also prescribes the specific categories and configurations of pumps to which the calculation-based and testing-based methods are applicable. As discussed further in section III.E.2, the testing-based methods are applicable to all pumps that are subject to the test procedure, while the calculation-based methods are only applicable to (1) pumps sold with neither a motor nor controls (
Regardless of the metric (
This final rule also establishes requirements regarding the sampling plan and representations for covered pumps at subpart B of part 429 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The sampling plan requirements are similar to those for several other types of commercial equipment and are appropriate for pumps based on the expected range of measurement uncertainty and manufacturing tolerances for this equipment. For those pumps addressed by this test procedure, DOE is also specifying the energy consumption or energy efficiency representations that may be made, in addition to the regulated metric (PEI
Beginning on the compliance date for any energy conservation standards that DOE may set, all pumps within the scope of those energy conservation standards would be required to be tested in accordance with subpart Y of part 431 and must have their testing performed in a manner consistent with the applicable sampling requirements. Manufacturers must make all representations of pump efficiency, overall (wire-to-water) efficiency, bowl efficiency, driver power input, pump power input (brake or shaft horsepower), and/or pump power output (hydraulic horsepower) using methods that will generate values consistent with the DOE test procedure beginning 180 days after the publication date of this final rule in the
This final rule places a new test procedure for pumps and related definitions in a new subpart Y of part 431, and adds new sampling plans and reporting requirements for this equipment in a new section 429.59 of 10 CFR part 429. Subpart Y contains definitions, materials incorporated by reference, and the test procedure for certain categories and configurations of pumps established as a result of this rulemaking, as well as any energy conservation standards for pumps resulting from the ongoing energy conservation standard rulemaking, as shown in Table III.1. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031)
The following sections discuss DOE's new provisions regarding testing and sampling requirements for pumps, including:
(1) Scope,
(2) rating metric,
(3) determination of pump performance,
(4) determination of motor efficiency,
(5) test methods for different combinations of bare pumps, drivers and controls,
(6) representations, and
(7) sampling plans.
The term “pump” is listed as a type of covered equipment under EPCA; however, that term is undefined.
In response to DOE's proposed definitions and scope of the test procedure for pumps, HI commented that it detected no inconsistencies with the scope of the pump test procedure and energy conservation standard rulemakings. (HI, No. 8 at p. 4)
DOE's criteria for establishing which pumps will be subject to the test procedure, including any additional comments received by interested parties on those particular topics, are discussed in sections III.A.1 through III.A.6, respectively.
To help explain the scope for this rule and the manner in which both the procedure and related standards will be applied to different pump configurations and categories of pumps, the aforementioned definitions for pump, certain pump components, and other specific pump characteristics, are discussed in the following subsections.
As part of its collective efforts to help DOE craft an appropriate regulatory approach to pumps, the CIP Working Group made a series of recommendations regarding a variety of potential definitions that would define “pump,” the covered equipment. In particular, the Working Group offered a definition for “pump” along with the related terms “bare pump,” “mechanical equipment,” “driver,” and “controls.” (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendations #1 and 2 at pp. 1-2) Accordingly, in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed adopting these recommended definitions with slight modification. 80 FR 17586, 17591 (April 1, 2015). Specifically, in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed the following terms:
•
•
•
•
•
HI expressed agreement with the proposed definitions, except for the text “entrained gases” in the proposed definition for pump. HI indicated that the text “entrained gasses” should be changed to “dissolved gasses” because pumps within scope are not designed to pump entrained gas, and small amounts
DOE understands that, whereas dissolved gases are in solution and would not appear as bubbles in the pumped liquid, entrained gases are not in solution and would appear as bubbles in the pumped liquid. In addition, DOE agrees that pumps within the scope of this rulemaking are not designed to pump entrained gas. This has been acknowledged through the definition of “clean water pump,” as described in section III.A.3 of this final rule, which specifies that the total gas content of the water must not exceed the saturation volume.
DOE did not receive comments on other aspects of the “pump” definition or on the other terms discussed in this section. As such, DOE is adopting definitions for the terms “pump,” “bare pump,” “mechanical equipment,” “driver,” and “control” as proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR without further changes.
The definition of “control” established in this final rule is broad. DOE acknowledges the definition may include many different kinds of electronic or mechanical devices that can “control the driver” of a pump (
In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed specific test methods for pumps that are sold with motors that are paired with controls that adjust the speed of the driver, as DOE determined that these were the most common type of controls that reduced energy consumption in the field. Similarly, DOE proposed that such pumps equipped with speed controls could apply the PEI
To explicitly establish the kinds of controls that may apply the PEI
•
•
DOE requested comment on the proposed definitions of “continuous control” and “non-continuous control.” DOE also requested comment on the likelihood of a pump with continuous or non-continuous controls being distributed in commerce, but never being paired with any sensor or feedback mechanisms that would enable energy savings. In response, HI commented that it agrees with the proposed definitions for continuous control and non-continuous control, and that it does not have data on pumps with speed controls being distributed in commerce without any sensor or feedback mechanisms. (HI, No. 8 at p. 4)
During the public meeting, Regal Beloit requested a clarification related to DOE's definitions of continuous control and non-continuous control. Specifically, Regal Beloit requested clarification regarding whether pumps sold with multi-pole motors and “single-speed controls, which would be considered multi-speed,” would be classified as pumps sold with non-continuous controls. (Regal Beloit, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at p. 98). With respect to Regal Beloit's use of the term “single-speed controls,” DOE believes that Regal Beloit is referring to “multi-speed” permanent split capacitor (PSC) motors, which are PSC motors that are offered with two or more discrete speed options. Depending on the specific model, speeds may be adjusted manually with a switch or automatically with a type of control logic. Similarly, multi-pole motors are induction motors that are offered with two or more discrete speed options. Again, speeds may be adjusted manually with a switch or automatically with a type of control logic.
In this final rule, DOE clarifies that, to the extent multi-pole motors and multi-speed PSC motors control the driver speed discretely (via manual switch or control logic) in response to incremental reductions in the required flow, head, or pump power output, such motors would meet the definition of non-continuous controls and would be tested in accordance with the applicable test procedure for pumps sold with motors and non-continuous controls (see section III.E). DOE also clarifies in this final rule that any control that can achieve the specified load points on the reference system curve (see section III.E.2.c) meets DOE's definition of continuous control, as it can achieve the specific flow rate and head values specified by the reference system curve in the test procedure.
CA IOUs asked during the April 2015 NOPR public meeting whether DOE would consider differentiating between two-speed and multi-speed motors, and stated that if more discrete speeds are available there is more opportunity to match the pump and motor to the load. (CA IOUs, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at pp. 98-99) DOE believes that in this context, CA IOUs is referring to “multi-speed motors” as motors with more than two discrete speeds.
DOE believes the definition of non-continuous control adequately covers all motors with two or more discrete speeds that are sold with any control mechanism that controls the motor speed discretely (
After considering HI's agreement with the proposed definitions and the questions raised by Regal Beloit and CA IOUs, DOE is adopting, in this final rule, the definitions for continuous and non-continuous controls, as proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR.
In the course of regulating consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment, DOE has developed the concept of a “basic model” to determine the specific product or equipment configuration(s) to which the regulations would apply. For the purposes of applying pumps regulations, DOE proposed to define what constitutes a basic model of pump.
In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE defined a basic model in a manner similar to the definitions used for other commercial and industrial equipment, with the exception of two pump-specific issues. Specifically, DOE proposed to define basic model as it applies to pumps to include all units of a given covered equipment type (or class thereof) manufactured by one manufacturer, having the same primary energy source, and having essentially identical electrical, physical, and functional (or hydraulic) characteristics that affect energy consumption, energy efficiency, water consumption, or water efficiency; except that:
(1) Variation in the number of stages particular radially split, multi-sage vertical in-line casing diffuser (RSV)
(2) pump models for which the bare pump differs in impeller diameter, or impeller trim, may be considered a single basic model.
The first modification to the basic model definition applies to variation in the number of stages for multi-stage bare pumps,
The second modification to the typical basic model definition proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR was that a trimmed impeller, though it may impact efficiency, would not be a basis for requiring different bare pump models to be rated as unique basic models.
Relevant to this proposed requirement, DOE proposed to define the term “full impeller” as it pertains to the rating of pump models in accordance with the test procedure. Specifically, DOE proposed to define full impeller as the maximum diameter impeller with which the pump is distributed in commerce in the United States or the maximum impeller diameter represented in the manufacturer's literature, whichever is larger. For pumps that may only be sold with a trimmed impeller due to a custom application, DOE proposed to define the full impeller as the maximum diameter impeller with which the pump is distributed in commerce. 80 FR 17586, 17593-94 (April 1, 2015)
Under DOE's proposed definition of “full impeller,” manufacturers would also be able to represent a model with a trimmed impeller as less consumptive than one with a full impeller. To do so, they would treat that trimmed impeller model as a different basic model and test a representative number of units at the maximum diameter distributed in commerce of that trimmed basic model listing. In such a case, the impeller trim with which the pump is rated would become the “full impeller diameter.” In these cases, manufacturers could elect to (1) group individual pump units with bare pumps that vary only in impeller diameter into a single basic model or (2) establish separate basic models (with unique ratings) for any number of unique impeller trims, provided that the PEI rating associated with any individual model were based on the maximum diameter impeller for that basic model and that basic model is compliant with any energy conservation standards established as part of the parallel pumps energy conservation standards rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031; 80 FR 17586, 17593-94 (April 1, 2015)).
DOE noted that, while manufacturers would be able to group pump models with various impeller trims under one basic model with the same certified PEI rating based on the full impeller diameter, all representations of PEI and PER for any individual model would be (1) based on testing of the model with the full impeller diameter in the basic model and (2) rated using method A.1, “bare pump with default motor efficiency and default motor part load loss curve” (explained further in section III.E), regardless of the actual impeller size used with a given pump.
At the April 2015 NOPR public meeting, interested parties representing HI
In response, DOE reaffirms that only reporting PEI at full impeller diameter will be mandatory. Given that some interested parties stated that they prefer maintaining the option of rating pumps with trimmed impellers as separate basic models, and HI did not indicate concern with this option in the written comments, DOE is maintaining the option to rate pumps with trimmed impellers as separate basic models in this final rule. Furthermore, DOE notes that in the case a manufacturer chooses to rate pumps with trimmed impellers as separate basic models, the full impeller definition is still applicable and all representations regarding the PEI and PER must be based on the “full impeller” diameter for that basic model.
Upon further review of the proposed definition for “full impeller,” DOE has determined that the language within the definition is duplicative, and therefore, potentially confusing. Specifically, in the proposed definition, DOE referred to both distribution in commerce and representations in manufacturer literature. However, DOE notes that 42 U.S.C. 4291(16) defines distribution in commerce as meaning “to sell in commerce, to import, to introduce or deliver for introduction into commerce, or to hold for sale or distribution after introduction into commerce.” This definition encompasses making advertising materials such as representations in manufacturer literature. Accordingly, DOE has revised the definition for full impeller diameter as set forth in the regulatory text of this rule (10 CFR 431.62).
In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE noted that, for pumps sold with motors and pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, pump manufacturers may pair a given pump with several different motors that have different performance characteristics. 80 FR 17586, 17594 (April 1, 2015). Under the definition of basic model proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR and discussed in section III.A.1.c, each unique pump and motor pairing represents a unique basic model. However, DOE noted that, consistent with DOE's practice with other products and equipment, pump manufacturers may elect to group similar individual pump models within the same equipment class into the same basic model to reduce testing burden, provided all representations regarding the energy use of pumps within that basic model are identical and based on the most consumptive unit. See 76 FR 12422, 12423 (March 7, 2011). In addition, consistent with DOE's treatment of variation in the number of stages for multi-stage RSV and VTS pumps and impeller trim, in the April 2015 pump test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that variation in motor sizing as a result of different impeller trims or different number of stages for multi-stage pumps would not serve as a basis for differentiating basic models. 80 FR 17586, 17593 (April 1, 2015)
In response, HI recommended that DOE clarify the definition of “basic model,” stating that “pump manufacturers may pair a given pump with several different motors with different performance characteristics, and can include all combinations under one basic model as long as the representations regarding the energy use is based on the most consumptive unit for each given pole speed, given clean water with a specific gravity of 1.0 . . . [A]s variation in impeller trim of the bare pump does not constitute a characteristic that would differentiate basic models, variation in motor sizing as a result of different impeller trims would also not serve as a basis for differentiating basic models.” (HI, No. 8 at p. 5)
In general, DOE agrees with HI's interpretation. DOE agrees with HI that pump manufacturers may pair a given pump with several different motors with different performance characteristics, and can include all combinations under one basic model if the certification of energy use and all representations made by the manufacturer, are based on the most consumptive bare pump/motor combination for each basic model and are determined in accordance with the DOE test procedure and applicable sampling plans. Furthermore, because variation in impeller trim of the bare pump is not a basis for requiring models to be rated as unique basic models, DOE agrees that variation in the horsepower rating of the paired motor as a result of different impeller trims within a basic model would also not necessarily be a basis for requiring units to be rated as unique basic models. Similarly since RSV and VTS pumps may be sold with varying numbers of stages, the horsepower rating of the paired motor may also vary correspondingly. DOE notes that this variation in motor horsepower does not necessarily constitute a characteristic that will define separate basic models.
However, variation in motor sizing (
DOE did not receive any other comments from interested parties regarding basic models for pumps sold
In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that the test procedure be applicable to the following pump equipment categories: end suction close-coupled (ESCC), end suction frame mounted (ESFM), in-line (IL), RSV, and VTS pumps. 80 FR 17586, 17594-95 (April 1, 2015). DOE also proposed that the test procedure would not be applicable to certain categories of pumps, including circulators, dedicated purpose pool pumps, axial/mixed flow pumps, and positive displacement pumps.
DOE requested comment on the proposed applicability of the test procedure to the five pump equipment categories noted above, namely ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV, and VTS pumps. HI commented that it agrees that the proposed test procedure was applicable to the five pump equipment categories noted. (HI, No. 8 at p. 5) HI also agreed that circulators and pool pumps should be handled under two separate rulemakings. (HI, No. 8 at p. 7) No other interested parties provided comments on the scope of applicability of the proposed test procedure. As the amendments DOE is making to the proposed test procedure provisions do not significantly change the test methods or approach specified in the pump test procedure, and receiving no dissenting comments, DOE adopts its proposal that the test procedure provisions established in this final rule are applicable to the same scope of pumps discussed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR. 80 FR 17586, 17591-17601 (April 1, 2015).
The specific definitions and specifications DOE proposed to establish the scope of the test procedure, and any comments DOE received on those definitions, are discussed in the subsequent sections III.A.2.a, III.A.2.b, III.A.2.c, and III.A.2.d. The final equipment category definitions DOE is adopting in this final rule are presented in section III.A.2.e.
As noted, in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed specific definitions for the five categories of pumps (
•
•
•
Based on these three definitions involving general pump characteristics, DOE proposed to define the following five pump equipment categories to which the test procedure applies as follows:
(1)
(a) the bare pump has its own impeller shaft and bearings and so does not rely on the motor shaft to serve as the impeller shaft;
(b) the pump requires attachment to a rigid foundation to function as designed and cannot function as designed when supported only by the supply and discharge piping to which it is connected; and
(c) the pump does not include a basket strainer.
Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature OH0 and OH1, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014.
(2)
(a) the motor shaft also serves as the impeller shaft for the bare pump;
(b) the pump requires attachment to a rigid foundation to function as designed and cannot function as designed when supported only by the supply and discharge piping to which it is connected; and
(c) the pump does not include a basket strainer.
Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature OH7, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014.
(3)
(a) liquid is discharged through a volute in a plane perpendicular to the impeller shaft; and
(b) the pump requires attachment to a rigid foundation to function as designed and cannot function as designed when supported only by the supply and discharge piping to which it is connected.
Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature OH3, OH4, or OH5, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014.
(4)
(a) liquid is discharged in a plane perpendicular to the impeller shaft;
(b) each stage (or bowl) consists of an impeller and diffuser; and.
(c) no external part of such a pump is designed to be submerged in the pumped liquid.
Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature VS8, as described in the ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008).
(5)
(a) each stage of this pump consists of an impeller and diffuser and
(b) liquid enters and exits each stage of the bare pump in a direction parallel to the impeller shaft.
Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature VS0, as described in ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008.
In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE requested comment on the proposed equipment category definitions and related terminology. Comments DOE received on these definitions and DOE's responses to those comments are discussed in the following subsections. DOE notes that comments regarding the exclusion of circulators and dedicated-purpose pool pumps, which are addressed in sections III.A.2.b and
DOE noted that any references to HI nomenclature in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 or ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008 were incorporated into the definitions of the aforementioned pump equipment categories as examples only and clarified that, in cases where there is a conflict between the description provided in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 or ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008, as applicable, and DOE's definitions established at 10 CFR 431.462, the language in the regulatory text would prevail.
DOE requested comment on whether the references to ANSI/HI nomenclature are necessary as part of the equipment definitions in the regulatory text; whether such references would be likely to cause confusion due to inconsistencies; and whether discussing the ANSI/HI nomenclature in this preamble would provide sufficient reference material for manufacturers when determining the appropriate equipment category for their pump models. At the April 2015 NOPR public meeting, an HI representative from Xylem (Mark Handzel) advocated the use of ANSI/HI nomenclature without new DOE nomenclature. (HI, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at p. 63) In written comments, HI indicated that it affirms the importance of any pump rulemaking using ANSI/HI designations and nomenclature, citing common usage by U.S. pump manufacturers, distributors, engineering consulting firms, and pump users. (HI, No. 8 at p. 6) HI also commented that all references to ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008 should be changed to ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 because the latter is the current version. (HI, No. 8 at p. 13) The EEAs commented that they support the proposed definitions for the pump types to which the proposed test procedures would be applicable; they also indicated that they believe this approach would both limit the risk that a manufacturer could make a small change to a pump design in order to avoid having to meet the pump efficiency standards and help to provide clarity to manufacturers. (EEAs, No. 10 at p. 1)
After reviewing the comments, DOE is maintaining its definitions for the pump equipment categories presented in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, which references the ANSI/HI nomenclature as illustrative only. DOE believes that this approach strikes the best balance between the needs of the industry and the ability of DOE to enforce its regulations for pumps appropriately. DOE reiterates that the scope of the rulemaking is not limited to pumps meeting the ANSI/HI nomenclature referenced in the definitions and that any pump model meeting one of the DOE equipment category definitions is considered to be part of that equipment category, whether or not the pump is considered by the industry to be part of one of the referenced ANSI/HI nomenclature subgroups or a different subgroup.
Further, in preparing this final rule, DOE reviewed the ANSI/HI nomenclature to ensure that all applicable categories of pumps that would meet DOE's proposed equipment definitions were listed. Upon review, DOE noticed that the styles of pumps identified as OH2, OH3A, OH5A, and OH6 in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 may be considered by some parties to meet ESCC, ESFM, or IL pump definitions because they share some similar characteristics with those categories of pumps. DOE wishes to clarify that the styles of pumps generally considered to be OH2, OH3A, OH5A, and OH6 are covered equipment in that they meet the definition of “pump,” but are not subject to the test procedure established in this final rule, since they do not fall within the specific scope of pumps to which the test procedure is applicable. Specifically, DOE determined that OH3A and OH5A are not within the scope of this rule because they do not meet the definition of end-suction pump (
Regarding OH6 pumps, DOE notes that such pumps include a high speed integral gear such that the impeller shaft will rotate faster than the driver. While these pumps meet the definition of IL pumps, they are excluded from the scope of pumps subject to this test procedure because they operate at impeller speeds greater than the nominal speed limitations discussed in section III.A.4 and III.C.2.c. In addition, the impellers and drivers of OH6 pumps rotate at different speeds and, thus, would be excluded based on DOE's revised specifications regarding the impeller and driver rotating speeds of pumps addressed by this test procedure (see section III.A.4). Similarly, DOE notes that OH2 pumps would meet the definition of an ESFM pump, but would be excluded because such pumps are designed specifically for pumping hydrocarbon fluids, as noted by the American Petroleum Institute Standard 610 certification and, as such, are not clean water pumps. For these reasons, DOE is not referencing OH2, OH3A, OH5A, or OH6 nomenclature in the definitions of ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV, and VTS established in this rulemaking.
Finally, DOE notes that in April 2014, HI released an updated version of ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2, ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014. DOE reviewed ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 and found the documents to be substantially the same as ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2−2008, with the exception of the addition of a new definition and description for pipe length, more detailed characteristics identified on some of the figures, and slight reorganization of the sections to improve document flow. DOE notes that none of these minor changes affect the content pertinent to the references to ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008 nomenclature proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR. As such, DOE believes that it is appropriate to reference the most up-to-date industry standard and is updating all references in the RSV and VTS equipment category definitions from ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008 to ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 in this final rule.
In response to DOE's request for comment on all proposed pump definitions in general, HI commented that twin head pumps, which combine two impeller assemblies into a common single axis flow casing with a single inlet and discharge, were not included in DOE's definitions and should be added to the rulemaking scope. (HI, No. 8 at p. 3) DOE notes that such pumps are a style of IL pump and, thus subject to the test procedure and standards as an IL pump, but DOE understands that this inclusion was not explicitly laid out in the NOPR. As such, twin head pumps meet the definition of IL pumps as proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR. Specifically, twin head pumps are single-axis flow, rotodynamic pumps with single-stage impellers and in which liquid is discharged through a volute in a plane perpendicular to the impeller shaft. However, to clarify the applicability of the IL pump definition and DOE's pump test procedure to twin head pumps, DOE is adopting in this final rule a definition of twin head pump as set forth in the regulatory text of this rule (10 CFR 431.62).
In this final rule, DOE is also clarifying the testing and certification requirements for such pumps. For the purposes of applying the DOE test procedure to and certifying twin head pumps, DOE is clarifying that such pumps should be tested configured with a single impeller assembly, as discussed further in section III.C.2.c.
DOE also requested specific comment on whether it needed to clarify the flow direction to distinguish RSV pumps from other similar pumps when determining test procedure and standards applicability and on whether any additional language would be necessary in the proposed RSV definition in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR to make the exclusion of immersible pumps clearer. HI commented that it believes the icons shown and the definition found in ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 provide sufficient clarity to the flow direction, and that it does not believe any additional language is necessary. (HI, No. 8 at pp. 6-7) DOE reviewed the figures in ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 and believes that the figure is illustrative of the general equipment characteristics for RSV pumps. The description accompanying the figure also describes the manner in which liquid enters and exits the pump. Specifically, section 2.1.3.6 of ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 states that, for RSV pumps, “fluid enters one nozzle of the in-line casing and is directed to the inlet of an internal multi-stage diffuser pump. After traveling through multiple stages, the liquid exits at the top stage of the pump where the flow is redirected via the outer sleeve to the opposing nozzle of the in-line casing.” As DOE's definition of RSV pump references the figures and description in ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014, and this description of flow path through the pump is not inconsistent or conflicting with DOE's definition of RSV pump, DOE does not believe that further clarification is necessary in this regard.
Regarding the exclusion of immersible pumps, HI commented that it did not believe any additional clarification was necessary. (HI, No. 8 at pp. 6-7) Therefore, in this final rule, DOE has determined that the adopted language is sufficient to exclude any immersible pumps from treatment as an RSV pump for purposes of DOE's regulations.
Upon review of CIP Working Group transcripts and slides, DOE also determined that interested parties had requested the equipment category “vertical turbine submersible” be termed “submersible turbine,” given that some of these pumps are installed horizontally. (CIP Working Group transcript, No. 14 at p. 263) DOE notes that the definition proposed for vertical turbine submersible is silent as to installation orientation and, as a result, would include horizontally installed pumps. DOE believes that referring to submersible turbine pumps as “vertical turbine submersible,” when horizontally mounted submersible turbine pumps are also included in the equipment category, as defined, could lead to confusion among manufacturers and in the market place. As such, and given that changing the defined term from vertical turbine submersible to submersible turbine would not change the scope of the definition, DOE is revising the nomenclature in this final rule to match that used in the CIP Working Group, which more accurately describes the subject equipment. In the preamble to this final rule, DOE has retained the VTS abbreviation for the submersible turbine equipment category for consistency with the April 2015 pump test procedure NOPR, pumps energy conservation standards rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031), and all Working Group discussions and recommendations to date (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039). However, DOE is adopting the acronym “ST” for the regulatory text for long-term consistency with the defined term.
Similarly, the “end suction frame mounted” category proposed in the NOPR had been referred to as “end suction frame mounted/own bearings” in the CIP Working Group documentation. (
DOE understands that there are several coupling and mounting methods for pairing a bare pump and motor, in addition to frame mounting, and that referring to the ESFM equipment category based only on that criteria may be misleading. To clarify the applicability of the previously defined end suction frame mounted equipment category to own bearing pumps, and given that changing the term itself would not change the scope of the definition, DOE is revising the nomenclature in this final rule to match that used in the CIP Working Group. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is defining this equipment category as end-suction frame mounted/own bearing and adding to the definition the term “mechanically-coupled” to clarify that the ESFM equipment is, in fact, inclusive of many coupling methods. DOE is further adopting a specific definition for “mechanically-coupled,” as mutually exclusive with “close-coupled,” to explicitly establish the coupling methods to which the ESFM equipment category applies. The definition of mechanically-coupled consists of text that was in the proposed definition for ESFM and does not change the scope of ESFM from the proposal.
Circulators, which are a specific kind of rotodynamic pump, are small, low-head pumps similar to the IL configuration pumps that are generally used to circulate water in hydronic space conditioning or potable water systems in buildings.
The CIP Working Group recommended that circulators be addressed as part of a separate rulemaking process that would involve informal negotiation between interested parties followed by an ASRAC-approved negotiation. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #5A at p. 2)
In the April 2015 test procedure NOPR, DOE also proposed to exclude circulators from the rulemaking, and proposed a definition that would be mutually exclusive from the other pumps in the rulemaking. Specifically, DOE proposed definitions for circulators, ESCC, ESFM, and IL pumps that were mutually exclusive, based on the assumption that circulators require only the support of the supply and discharge piping to function as designed, whereas ESCC, ESFM, and IL pumps require attachment to a rigid foundation to function as designed. In response to the proposed circulator definition, DOE received comments from several interested parties,
The EEAs and CA IOUs expressed concern that the portion of the proposed circulator definition that describes circulators as “requir[ing] only the support of the supply and discharge piping to which it is connected to function as designed,” may lead to the design of circulators with alternative mounting intended to circumvent regulation. (EEAs, No. 10 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 13 at pp. 4-5) HI agreed that no pump definition should be associated with a rigid foundation, as in the industry rigid foundation has a different connotation than DOE is using. (HI, No. 8 at pp. 5-6, 10). HI also disagreed with the proposed circulator definition, commenting that there are many end suction and close-coupled IL pumps that would meet the proposed circulator definition but that are not considered circulators. Instead, HI stated its belief that such pumps should be included in the scope of pumps considered in this rulemaking. As a result, HI recommended revising the definitions of circulator, ESFM, ESCC, and IL pumps, as well as other related definitions. (HI, No. 8 at pp. 7-8) Following the close of the comment period, the HI circulator pump committee resubmitted revised definitions for circulator and IL pumps, and other related definitions. (HI, No. 15 at pp. 1-3)
DOE reviewed both sets of HI's recommended definitions and found them to be essentially the same. Specifically, HI's circulator pump committee offered the following revised definitions of IL pumps and circulator pumps, which were also included in HI's comments submitted in response to the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR:
“In-line pump means a single-stage, single-axis flow, dry rotor, rotodynamic pump that has a shaft input power greater than or equal to one horsepower and less than or equal to two hundred horsepower at BEP and full impeller diameter, in which liquid is discharged through a volute in a plane perpendicular to the shaft, except for: Those that are short-coupled or close-coupled, have a maximum hydraulic power that is less than or equal to five horsepower at the full impeller diameter and over the full range of operation, and are distributed in commerce with a horizontal motor. Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature OH3, OH4, or OH5, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014, within the specified horsepower range. Pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature CP1, CP2, and CP3, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014, would not meet the definition of in-line pump.” (HI, No. 8 at pp. 5-6; HI, No. 15 at p. 1)
“Circulator pump means a single stage, in-line, rotodynamic pump that meets one of the following descriptions:
i. [Wet Rotor Circulator] A single-axis flow, close-coupled, wet rotor pump that: (1) Has a maximum hydraulic power greater than or equal to 1/40 hp and less than or equal to 5 hp at full impeller diameter and over the full range of operation, (2) is distributed in commerce with a horizontal motor, and (3) discharges the pumped liquid through a volute in a plane perpendicular to the shaft. Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 nomenclature CP1; or
ii. [Dry Rotor Two-Piece Circulator] A single-axis flow, close-coupled, dry rotor pump that: (1) Has a maximum hydraulic power greater than or equal to 1/40 hp and less than or equal to 5 hp at full impeller diameter and over the full range of operation, (2) is distributed in commerce with a horizontal motor, and (3) discharges the pumped liquid through a volute in a plane perpendicular to the shaft. Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 nomenclature CP2; or
iii. [Dry Rotor Three-Piece Circulator] A single-axis flow, short-coupled, dry rotor pump, either flexibly or rigidly coupled that: (1) Has a maximum hydraulic power greater than or equal to 1/40 hp and less than or equal to 5 hp at full impeller diameter and over the full range of operation, (2) is distributed in commerce with a horizontal motor, and (3) discharges the pumped liquid through a volute in a place perpendicular to the shaft. Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 nomenclature CP3.”
HI also recommended several supporting definitions, including definitions for single-axis flow pump, close-coupled pump, short-coupled pump, rigid-coupled pump, flexibly-coupled pump, hydraulic power, wet rotor pump, dry rotor pump, horizontal motor, and non-horizontal motor. (HI, No. 8 at pp. 9-10; HI, No. 15 at pp. 2-3)
The EEAs and CA IOUs also stated that they are collectively discussing an improved definition of circulators with HI. (EEAs, No. 10 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 13 at pp. 4-5)
In light of the continued discussions among these interested parties regarding future definitions, test procedures, and energy conservation standards for circulators, DOE has decided to refrain from defining the term “circulator” in this rulemaking. Rather than explicitly define the term circulator in this rule, DOE has modified the definitions of ESCC, ESFM, IL, VTS, and RSV to specifically exclude certain categories of pumps that are widely considered circulators by the industry, using many of the criteria and characteristics of circulators indicated by HI in its comments and proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR.
In particular, in its definition of IL pump, DOE excluded pumps that are commonly marketed and sold as circulators in the pump industry by utilizing the design features of a horizontal motor, as well as a hydraulic power less than or equal to 5 hp. This is consistent with HI's suggested definition of IL pump as well as circulator pump, which includes reference to a horizontal motor and a horsepower range of 1/40 to 5 hydraulic hp. DOE agrees that a horizontal motor, which is a motor that is required to be oriented with the motor shaft in a horizontal position in order to operate as designed, is a distinguishing feature of a circulator. To clearly establish this characteristic, DOE is also defining the term horizontal motor in this rulemaking based on the definition HI suggested in its comments. Specifically, HI's proposed definition and the definition DOE is adopting in this final rule are as follows:
DOE notes that it is maintaining a lower shaft limit of 1 hp for the IL pump equipment category and only specifically excluding those pumps that have both: (1) A hydraulic output of less than 5 hp and (2) a horizontal motor. As such, any IL pumps that have a shaft horsepower greater than or equal to 1 hp and hydraulic output less than 5 hp and are not sold with a horizontal motor, as well as IL pumps that have a hydraulic output greater than or equal to 5 hp and shaft horsepower less than or equal to 200 hp and are sold with a horizontal or non-horizontal motor, would continue to be included in the IL pump definition and subject to the test procedure established in this final rule. DOE notes that the majority of pumps that are commonly referred to as
DOE also acknowledges that HI recommended establishing the hydraulic horsepower threshold over the full range of operation of the pump. (HI, No. 8 at pp. 5-6 and 8-9; HI, No. 15 at p. 1) However, DOE notes that the other horsepower thresholds referenced in this final rule reference pump shaft input power as measured at BEP. DOE also notes that the test procedure established in this final rule contains a specific and repeatable methodology for determining BEP of a tested pump. Conversely, in the proposed test procedure, DOE did not define the “full range of operation” of a pump or propose a method for how to determine it. Since it is important that DOE's test procedures be as precise and unambiguous as possible, DOE believes that it is important that the hydraulic horsepower of a pump be determined in a consistent manner when determining whether or not the pump meets the definition of an IL pump and, thus, is subject to DOE's pumps test procedure establish in this final rule. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is establishing the hydraulic horsepower threshold for circulator pumps as determined at BEP. That is, DOE will exclude from the definition of IL pump, IL pumps with a hydraulic horsepower less than 5 hp, as determined at full impeller diameter and BEP, and that are distributed in commerce with a horizontal motor, as those pumps are considered to be circulator pumps.
Consistent with the changes to the IL definition, DOE is also incorporating horsepower limits into the ESCC, ESFM, RSV, and VTS equipment category definitions. DOE notes that, in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to establish the scope of the test procedure using a horsepower range of greater than or equal to 1 hp and less than 200 hp that was applicable to all ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV, and VTS pumps. 80 FR 17586, 17600 (April 1, 2015). However, to maintain consistent format among the five defined equipment categories, DOE is including this established horsepower range in each of the equipment category definitions explicitly rather than in a separate scope limitation. DOE discusses the horsepower range and other parameters used to establish the scope of the test procedure in section III.A.4.
Additionally, DOE has added the design feature of a “dry rotor” to the definition of an IL pump
DOE also acknowledges the concern from interested parties regarding the potential issues associated with referencing attachment to a rigid foundation. As noted in the NOPR, DOE initially proposed such a design feature to clearly differentiate and exclude circulators from other, similar categories of pumps that would be subject to the proposed test procedure. However, DOE has, based on comments received from interested parties, revised its approach to the exclusion of circulators and, consequently, this design feature is no longer needed in the definitions of IL, ESCC, and ESFM. Instead, DOE has made other modifications to the applicable definitions to continue to exclude circulators from the equipment categories addressed in this rulemaking, as discussed above.
In addition to the parameters necessary to exclude circulators from the scope of pumps for which the test procedure is applicable, the CA IOUs commented that certain multi-stage pumps should be included in the definition of a circulator, as proposed by DOE. CA IOUs also provided an example of a commercially available style of pump that they believe to be a multi-stage circulator. (CA IOUs, No. 13 at pp. 4-5) DOE reviewed the example style of pump provided by the CA IOUs and found that this specific style of pump is available in sizes from 0.5 to 75 motor hp, depending on impeller diameter and number of stages. DOE also concluded that specific models within this general pump family, namely those with shaft horsepower greater than or equal to 1 hp, meet the definition of an RSV pump and therefore are included in the scope of this rulemaking. Conversely, other models within the same pump family with shaft horsepower less than 1 hp do not meet the definition of an RSV pump and are not subject to the test procedure established in this rulemaking. Consequently, given that DOE has withdrawn its proposal to define circulators at this time, DOE has determined that it does not need to define or address these small RSV pumps in this rulemaking.
The CIP Working Group formally recommended that DOE initiate a separate rulemaking for dedicated-purpose pool pumps (DPPPs) by December 2014. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #5A at p. 2) In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed defining a “dedicated-purpose pool pump” as an end suction pump designed specifically to circulate water in a pool and that includes an integrated basket strainer. 80 FR 17586, 17641 (April 1, 2015). DOE developed this proposed definition to help distinguish a DPPP from other categories of pumps under consideration in this rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0055).
In response, APSP requested that DOE continue to keep pool pumps separate from the scope of pumps considered in this rulemaking (APSP, No. 12 at p.1), and the CA IOUs encouraged ASRAC to establish a new working group for DPPP. (CA IOUs, No. 13 at pp. 1-2) In July 2015, DOE issued a RFI on DPPPs requesting data and information from
DOE also received several comments regarding its proposed definition. During the April 2015 NOPR public meeting, CA IOUs expressed that the defining characteristic of a pool pump may not be the strainer basket, as not all pool pumps have them. (CA IOUs, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at pp. 57-58, 68) An HI representative from Xylem (Mark Handzel) responded that commercial pool pumps without basket strainers would be considered under one of the equipment categories addressed in this rulemaking. (HI, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at pp. 58-59) An HI representative from Xylem (Paul Ruzicka) also suggested that, on the residential side, pool pumps are double insulated products. (HI, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at pp. 69-70)
In written comments, the EEAs and the CA IOUs noted that many pool pumps, including booster pumps, do not include an integrated basket strainer, and that not all pool pumps are designed specifically to circulate water (EEAs, No. 10 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 13 at p. 2-3). The CA IOUs noted that 40 percent of California residential in-ground pools have booster pumps that are operated 2.5 hours per day. The size is typically
In separate written comments, APSP and the CA IOUs recommended the following definition:
“A `pool pump' is a pump with the following characteristics:
• An integral end suction pump and motor combination specifically designed for pool and spa applications.
• The impeller is attached to a motor (or motor and controller) served by single-phase power five total horsepower or less.
• The pump is secured directly to the motor, or the pump and motor are factory secured to a common frame.” (APSP, No. 12 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 13 at p. 3-4)
DOE's original intent in proposing a definition for DPPP in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR was to properly exclude them from this rulemaking. Upon review, DOE agrees with certain of the submitted comments on the proposed definition, such as that all pumps associated with pools may not include an integrated basket strainer. For example, DOE is aware that booster pumps are not typically sold with integrated basket strainers and some filter pumps may be sold separately from the strainer, as discussed in the July 2015 DPPP RFI. 80 FR 26475, 26481 (May 8, 2015).
Therefore, after reviewing the comments submitted by interested parties, DOE has decided to refrain from adopting a definition for DPPP in this final rule. Instead, in this final rule, DOE is excluding DPPP from the definitions for ESCC and ESFM pumps, and DOE will define DPPP in the separate DPPP rulemaking that was initiated with the RFI.
“Axial/mixed flow pump” is a term used by the pump industry to describe a rotodynamic pump that is used to move large volumes of liquid at high flow rates and low heads. These pumps are typically custom-designed and used in applications such as dewatering, flood control, and storm water management.
Positive displacement (PD) pumps are a style of pump that operates by first opening an increasing volume to suction; this volume is then filled, closed, moved to discharge, and displaced. PD pumps operate at near-constant flow over their range of operational pressures and can often produce higher pressure than a centrifugal pump, at a given flow rate. PD pumps also excel at maintaining flow and efficiency for liquids more viscous than water. When used in clean water applications, PD pumps are typically chosen for high pressure, constant flow applications such as high pressure power washing, oil field water injection, and low-flow metering processes.
The CIP Working Group recommended excluding both of these types of pumps from prospective energy conservation standards. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #6 at p. 2) The primary reason for excluding these pumps from this test procedure rulemaking is their low market share in the considered horsepower range and low potential for energy savings. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 14 at pp. 114 and 372-73) In addition, the CIP Working Group acknowledged that PD pumps are more commonly used in non-clean water applications and provide a different utility than the categories of pumps addressed in this rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 14 at p. 114) Therefore, in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to exclude these pumps from the scope of this rulemaking and the parallel energy conservation standards rulemaking, but determined that both axial/mixed flow and PD pumps were implicitly excluded based on the proposed equipment category definitions and scope parameters, so that explicit exclusions were not necessary. 80 FR 17586, 17597-98 (April 1, 2015). In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE requested comment on the proposed exclusion and the assertion that such pumps were explicitly excluded based on the existing definitions and scope parameters.
HI commented that both positive displacement and axial/mixed flow pumps should be added to the list of equipment excluded from the scope of pumps in this final rule. HI noted that PD pumps represent a small percentage of the overall pump market and are generally used for niche applications, such as viscous or shear-sensitive liquids. As a result, such pumps have a distinct difference in design compared with rotodynamic pumps. HI also suggested differentiating and excluding axial/mixed flow pumps using a specific speed limit of 4,500,
In response to HI, DOE notes that the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR does not include PD pumps within its scope of applicability. All equipment to which the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR and this final rule applies is explicitly defined as types of rotodynamic pumps. Further, rotodynamic pumps are explicitly defined in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR and this final rule as continuously imparting energy to the pumped fluid by means of a rotating impeller, propeller, or rotor. Such definition necessarily does not include
Regarding axial/mixed flow pumps, DOE agrees with HI that axial/mixed flow pumps, which are designed to accommodate high flow-to-head-ratio applications, should not be subject to the test procedure established in this final rule. DOE notes that the definitions of IL, RSV, and VTS implicitly exclude axial/mixed flow pumps through specific design features. Specifically, the definitions of IL and RSV pumps exclude axial/mixed flow pumps by specifying single axis flow and a liquid inlet in a plane perpendicular to the impeller shaft. In contrast, the liquid intake in axial/mixed flow pumps is typically parallel to the impeller shaft; as such, these pumps do not meet the definition of an RSV or IL pump. DOE understands that less typical piping configurations could allow an axial/mixed flow pump to be built with the liquid inlet in a plane perpendicular to the impeller shaft. However, such a configuration would not satisfy the definition of single axis flow and, as such, these pumps would not meet the definition of an RSV or IL pump. Additionally, the definition of VTS pump excludes axial/mixed flow pumps by specifying that the pump must be designed to operate with the motor and stage(s) fully submerged in the pumped liquid. Axial/mixed flow pumps are not designed to be completely submerged in the pumped liquid and, therefore do not meet the definition of a VTS pump.
In summary, DOE believes that the definitions of IL, RSV, and VTS equipment categories are sufficient to exclude pumps that are referred to as axial/mixed flow. As a result, DOE maintains that a specific speed limitation or other criteria for these categories is unnecessary, and DOE has not included a specific speed range for these pumps in the parameters for establishing the scope of this rulemaking described in section III.A.4.
With respect to the end suction pumps defined in this final rule, DOE agrees that additional scope parameters are necessary to limit the scope of this rulemaking to end suction pumps and not inadvertently include axial/mixed flow pumps. DOE agrees with HI's suggestion of a specific speed limit to accomplish the exclusion of axial/mixed flow pumps. However, DOE reviewed the specific speeds of all end suction pumps submitted by manufacturers during the energy conservation standards rulemaking and identified multiple end suction pumps with specific speeds in the range of 4,500 to 5,000.
After consideration of all comments, definitions for pump equipment categories subject to this test procedure are as set forth in the regulatory text of this rule (10 CFR 431.62).
DOE received no comments on DOE's other supporting definitions proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, namely rotodynamic pump, single axis flow pump, and end suction pump. Therefore, DOE is adopting those definitions as proposed.
In an effort to meet the intent and recommendations of the CIP Working Group to include only those pumps intended to pump clean water in the scope of this test procedure rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #8 at pp. 3-4), DOE proposed to define “clean water pump” in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR. 80 FR 17586, 17598 (April 1, 2015). DOE also proposed defining several kinds of clean water pumps that are designed for specific applications and that the CIP Working Group had indicated should be excluded from the scope of this test procedure and DOE's standards rulemaking efforts that are being considered in a separate rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031) These proposed definitions, comments DOE received regarding the proposed definitions, and DOE's responses to those comments are discussed in the subsequent sections III.A.3.a and III.A.3.b.
In the NOPR, DOE proposed defining “clean water pump” as a pump that is designed for use in pumping water with a maximum non-absorbent free solid content of 0.25 kilograms per cubic meter, and with a maximum dissolved solid content of 50 kilograms per cubic meter, provided that the total gas content of the water does not exceed the saturation volume, and disregarding any additives necessary to prevent the water from freezing at a minimum of −10 °C. DOE also noted that several common pumps would not meet the definition of clean water pumps, as they are not designed for pumping clean water, including wastewater, sump, slurry, or solids handling pumps; pumps designed for pumping hydrocarbon product fluids; chemical process pumps; and sanitary pumps. DOE also proposed to incorporate by reference the definition for “clear water” established in HI 40.6-2014 to describe the characteristics of the fluid to be used when testing pumps in accordance with the DOE test procedure. 80 FR 17586, 17598 (April 1, 2015).
DOE requested comment on the definition of “clean water pump” proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR and its proposal to incorporate by reference the definition of “clear water” in HI 40.6-2014 to describe the testing fluid to be used when testing pumps in accordance with the DOE test procedure. In response to these proposals, HI commented that it agrees with the definition of “clean water pump” as set forth in the NOPR, and that it agrees with incorporating by reference the definition of “clear water” in HI 40.6-2014. (HI, No. 8 at p. 11) DOE received no other comments on these terms and has determined that the definitions proposed in the NOPR are sufficient for the purposes of applying DOE's test procedure. However, for consistency, DOE is making the minor modification of translating the definition to use all U.S. customary units. As such, DOE is adopting the definition of clean water pump and incorporating by reference the definition of “clear water” in HI 40.6-2014 as proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, with only the minor modification regarding units noted previously.
In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE also proposed defining several kinds of pumps that meet the definition of clean water pumps discussed in section III.A.3.a, but that the CIP Working Group recommended be excluded from this pumps test procedure rulemaking. Specifically, in the April 2015 pump test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that the test procedure would not apply to the following:
• Fire pumps;
• self-priming pumps;
• prime-assist pumps;
• sealless pumps;
• pumps designed to be used in a nuclear facility subject to 10 CFR part 50—Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities; and
• a pump meeting the design and construction requirements set forth in Military Specification MIL-P-17639F, “Pumps, Centrifugal, Miscellaneous Service, Naval Shipboard Use” (as amended).
Accordingly, DOE proposed the following definitions of fire pump, self-priming pump, prime-assist pump, and sealless pump:
•
•
•
•
○ A pump that transmits torque from the motor to the bare pump using a magnetic coupling; or
○ A pump in which the motor shaft also serves as the impeller shaft for the bare pump, and the motor rotor is immersed in the pumped fluid.
HI commented that it agrees with the definition of “fire pump” and recommended alternate definitions for “self-priming pump,” “prime-assist pump,” and “sealless pump” as follows:
•
•
• A
○ A hermetically sealed pump that transmits torque from the motor to an inner impeller rotor via magnetic force through a containment shell;
○ Or, a type of pump that has a common shaft to link the pump and motor in a single hermetically sealed unit. The pumped liquid is circulated through the motor but is isolated from the motor components by a stator liner.
DOE considered these recommendations and revised the definitions of these excluded clean water pumps in this final rule, incorporating the key components of HI's proposals. Specifically, DOE agrees with HI's revised definitions for prime-assist pump and self-priming pump and is adopting them in this final rule with some minor modifications for clarity. DOE finds HI's suggested definitions to be consistent with DOE's proposed definitions but more precise, using industry-specific language.
Regarding HI's suggested definition of sealless pump, DOE agrees with the content of the definition. However, DOE notes that, based on the modifications to equipment category definitions described in section III.A.2.a, DOE has determined that it is no longer necessary to explicitly exclude wet rotor pumps (the second clause of HI's sealless pump definition) from the scope of this rulemaking. Specifically, as explained in section III.A.2.a, DOE is specifying in its revised definitions that all ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV, and VTS pumps are types of dry rotor pumps. Dry rotor pump means a pump in which the motor rotor is not immersed in the pumped fluid. Conversely, a wet rotor pump is one in which the motor rotor is immersed in the pumped liquid.
Given the mutually exclusive relationship between wet and dry rotor pumps, the definitions of ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV, and VTS pumps, as established in section III.A.2.a, now implicitly exclude wet rotor pumps from the scope of this test procedure. As a result, DOE has simplified the sealless pump exclusion in this final rule to exclude magnet driven pumps only. Accordingly, DOE is also modifying the term “sealless pump” to “magnet driven pump,” as DOE believes this term more accurately describes the excluded equipment. In addition, DOE is modifying the definition of magnet driven pump to be consistent with the suggestions from HI, which DOE believes is consistent with the portion of the sealless pump definition proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR addressing magnet driven pumps, but which uses more precise and industry-specific terminology.
HI also commented that no pumps designed to the Federal defense specification MIL-P-17639 should be included in this rulemaking. (HI, No. 8 at p. 12) HI stated that the specifications included in the CIP Working Group
Pumps designed to these military specifications must meet very specific physical and/or operational characteristics and comply with complex and rigid reporting requirements.
After reviewing and considering comments, DOE is adopting in this final rule that the following specific types of clean water pumps are excluded from the scope of this test procedure final rule:
• Fire pumps;
• self-priming pumps;
• prime-assist pumps;
• magnet driven pumps;
• pumps designed to be used in a nuclear facility subject to 10 CFR part 50—Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities; and
• pumps meeting the design and construction requirements set forth in Military Specification MIL-P-17639F, “Pumps, Centrifugal, Miscellaneous Service, Naval Shipboard Use” (as amended); MIL-P-17881D, “Pumps, Centrifugal, Boiler Feed, (Multi-Stage)” (as amended); MIL-P-17840C, “Pumps, Centrifugal, Close-Coupled, Navy Standard (For Surface Ship Application)” (as amended); MIL-P-18682D, “Pump, Centrifugal, Main Condenser Circulating, Naval Shipboard” (as amended); and MIL-P-18472G, “Pumps, Centrifugal, Condensate, Feed Booster, Waste Heat Boiler, And Distilling Plant” (as amended).
Accordingly, DOE provides the revised definitions of fire pump, self-priming pump, prime-assist pump, and magnet driven pump set forth in the regulatory text of this rule (10 CFR 431.62).
In addition to limiting the types of pumps that DOE will regulate at this time through pump definitions and their applications, DOE proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR to further limit the scope of the pumps test procedure considered in this rulemaking by applying the following performance and design characteristics:
• 1-200 hp (shaft power at the BEP at full impeller diameter for the number of stages
• 25 gallons per minute (gpm) and greater (at BEP at full impeller diameter);
• 459 feet of head maximum (at BEP at full impeller diameter);
• design temperature range from −10 to 120 °C;
• pumps designed for nominal 3,600 or 1,800 revolutions per minute (rpm) driver speeds; and
• 6-inch or smaller bowl diameter for VTS pumps (HI VS0).
Wilo commented that lower thresholds for horsepower and BEP flow rate should not be included as limiting parameters on the scope of pumps considered in the rule, citing unspecified gains in energy savings that could be realized by regulating smaller models. (Wilo, Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031, No. 44 at pp. 1-2)
HI recommended in the April 2015 NOPR public meeting and written comments that DOE establish scope related to “driver and impeller” speed rather than just driver speed. HI noted that pumps do not all have 1:1 motor rotating speed to impeller-rotating speed, such as a gear pump. (HI, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at p. 85; HI, No. 8 at p. 13) HI further specified as an example that a geared pump designed to use a 2-pole motor could be in scope but could not be tested according to section I.C.1 of the test procedure. (HI, No. 8 at p. 13)
DOE notes that the list shown in the preamble of the April 2015 pump test procedure NOPR, based on the CIP Working Group recommendations, included a limitation for pumps designed for nominal driver speeds of 3,600 or 1,800 revolutions per minute (rpm) driver. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #7 at p. 3); 80 FR 17586, 17600 (April 1, 2015). However, in the regulatory text of the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE modified this recommendation to acknowledge that the pumps within the scope of the proposed test procedure include pumps paired with non-induction motors, which have wide range of operating speeds. Specifically, DOE proposed to limit the scope of the proposed test procedure to pumps designed to operate with either: (1) A 2- or 4-pole induction motor, or (2) a non-induction motor with a speed of rotation operating range that includes speeds of rotation between 2,880 and 4,320 rpm and/or 1,440 and 2,160 rpm.
DOE notes that geared pumps were never explicitly addressed by the CIP Working Group; were not included in the pump data which are the basis of this final rule and the associated energy conservation standard rulemaking; and were not intended to be included in the scope of the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR. In addition, as mentioned in section III.A.2.a, geared pumps typically operate at impeller speeds higher than the 1,800 and 3,600 nominal rotating speeds DOE referenced in CIP Working Group discussions and the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR. In light of HI's comment, DOE agrees that it is worth clarifying that such pumps are not subject to or addressed by the test procedure established in this final rule. To clarify that pumps with higher impeller or lower driver rotating speeds (
During the April 2015 NOPR public meeting, the CA IOUs expressed concern regarding whether it was the CIP Working Group's intention to address VTS pumps that operate at high speed. Specifically, the CA IOUs mentioned that it may not have been the intent of HI to exclude a product operating at a higher rpm and recommended that HI consider the language proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR to ensure they support the scope of pumps addressed by the proposed test procedure. (CA IOUs, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at pp. 86-88) However, in its written comments, HI did not recommend any changes to the parameters other than the discussion on impeller speed versus driver speed. (HI, No. 8 at p. 13)
Wilo commented that manufacturers may redesign to nominal speeds excluded from the DOE regulation. (Wilo, Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031, No. 44 at p. 2) Wilo indicated that, for example, a pump could be designed for use with 6-pole motors at 1,200 rpm, or for use with controls at 2,650 rpm. Wilo recommended to instead apply the minimum efficiency required per equipment class (
DOE's data and analysis are based solely on pumps with nominal rotating speeds corresponding to those speed ranges proposed in the 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR. DOE notes that, during the initial data request underlying the parallel pumps test procedure and energy conservation standards rulemakings, DOE requested data on six-pole pumps from manufacturers. However, manufacturers declined to provide such on the basis that, while some pumps may be sold for use with 6-pole motors, they are all designed for use with 4- or 2-pole motors. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 46 at p. 198) As such, manufacturers posited that these pumps would already be captured in the provided data for 4- and 2-pole, and any efficiency improvements made to meet the energy conservation standards for those equipment classes would also result in energy savings when the pump was operated with a 6-pole motor. Additionally, DOE finds it unlikely that, for those pumps that can operate with 2-, 4-, or 6-pole motors, a manufacturer would begin specifying that their pump was inappropriate for operation in the nominal speed ranges of 2,880 and 4,320 rpm and/or 1,440 and 2,160 rpm to avoid regulation.
After considering these comments, DOE maintains its position set forth in the NOPR, and limits the test procedure applicability to pumps designed for the given motors or speeds. DOE notes that pumps with lower or higher operating speeds are covered as “pumps” and, should DOE deem it necessary, DOE could evaluate the need for a test procedure or standards for pumps at other rotating speeds in a future rulemaking.
In summary, DOE is establishing in this final rule the following scope parameters:
• 25 gpm and greater (at BEP at full impeller diameter);
• 459 feet of head maximum (at BEP at full impeller diameter and the number of stages specified for testing);
• design temperature range from 14 to 248 °F;
• designed to operate with either (1) a 2- or 4-pole induction motor, or (2) a non-induction motor with a speed of rotation operating range that includes speeds of rotation between 2,880 and 4,320 rpm and/or 1,440 and 2,160 rpm, and in either case, the driver and impeller must rotate at the same speed; and
• 6-inch or smaller bowl diameter for VTS pumps (HI VS0).
As discussed further in section III.B.2, DOE is clarifying that the limitation on pump total head of 459 feet must be ascertained based on the pump operating at BEP, at full impeller diameter, and with the number of stages specified for testing.
Additionally, to exclude axial/mixed flow pumps, DOE is applying a seventh scope parameter for ESCC and ESFM pumps, namely:
• For ESCC and ESFM pumps, specific speed less than or equal to 5,000 when calculated using U.S. customary units in accordance with the DOE test procedure.
As discussed in section III.A.2.d, DOE is setting this limit on specific speed based on HI's suggestion and data submitted by manufacturers for end suction pumps. DOE believes that a specific speed limit for the remaining equipment categories, namely IL, RSV, and VTS, are unnecessary, as the definitions for these categories include design features that implicitly exclude axial/mixed flow pumps.
In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed defining bowl diameter to specify clearly and unambiguously the limiting criterion for VTS pumps (
With this definition, only those VTS pumps with bowl diameters of 6 inches or less would be required to be tested under the test procedure.
In response to DOE's request for comment on the proposed definition for “bowl diameter” as it would apply to VTS pumps, HI commented that the definition should reference the updated 2014 version of ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008, and recommended that the word “outermost” should be inserted before the text “circular shape of the intermediate bowl.” (HI, No. 8 at p. 13) Based on previously submitted HI comments regarding the energy conservation standards rulemaking for pumps, DOE understands that VTS (
DOE agrees with HI that including the word “outermost” in the proposed bowl diameter definition would improve the clarity of the critical dimension and ensure the definition is aligned with how the pumps are treated in EU 547. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is including the term outer diameter before the text “circular shape of the intermediate bowl” in the definition of “bowl diameter” proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR. DOE has also determined that in order to avoid confusion with the ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 term “seal chamber,” the text “or chamber” should be removed from the bowl diameter definition. The revised definition reads as set forth in the regulatory text of this rule (10 CFR 431.62).
DOE recognizes that some pumps, particularly in the agricultural sector, may be sold and operated with drivers other than electric motors (
DOE requested comment on its proposal to test pumps sold with non-electric drivers as bare pumps. HI commented that it agrees that pumps sold with non-electric drivers should be tested as bare pumps, as recommended by the CIP Working Group. (HI, No. 8 at p. 13) DOE received no other comments on the proposal and is adopting provisions for testing pumps paired with non-electric drivers as bare pumps in this final rule, as proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR.
In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE acknowledged that some pumps within the scope of this rulemaking may be distributed in commerce with single-phase motors. However, DOE determined that the majority of pumps in the scope of this test procedure rulemaking are sold with polyphase induction motors. Moreover, DOE noted that, to the extent that pumps within the scope of the proposed test procedure are distributed in commerce with single-phase motors, most of these pumps are offered for sale with either single-phase or polyphase induction motors of similar size, depending on the power requirements of customers.
Given that single-phase induction motors are, in general, less efficient than polyphase induction motors and, thus, will result in different energy consumption characteristics when paired with the same bare pump, DOE proposed that pumps sold with single-phase induction motors be tested and rated in the bare pump configuration, using the calculation-based method (
In response to DOE's proposed method for testing pumps sold with single-phase induction motors, HI agreed that it is appropriate to apply the calculation-based test procedure to bare pumps to determine the PEI
After significant discussion in the CIP Working Group open meeting, the Working Group recommended that DOE use a wire-to-water, power-based metric for all pumps, regardless of how they are sold. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #11 at p. 5) Specifically, the CIP Working Group recommended that DOE use the PEI metric to measure pump energy performance, which is calculated as a ratio of the PER (PER
Accordingly, in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to establish a test procedure to determine the PEI
Specifically, for pumps sold without continuous or non-continuous controls, DOE proposed using the PEI
Similarly, for pumps sold with a motor and continuous or non-continuous controls, DOE proposed to use PEI
DOE noted in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR that, under the proposed approach, the performance of bare pumps or pumps paired with motors (but without continuous or non-continuous controls) would be determined for the appropriate load points along the single-speed pump curve by increasing head (
As mentioned above, PER
Lack of field data on load profiles and the wide variation in system operation also make it difficult to select appropriate weights for the load profiles. For these reasons, the CIP Working Group members concluded that equal weighting would at least create a level playing field across manufacturers (see,
In response to DOE's proposed metrics, load points, and weights, HI commented that it agrees with the PEI
Similarly, DOE is adopting a metric of PEI
DOE notes that, in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to refer to the driver power input using the variable P
DOE proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR that the PER
In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to determine PER
DOE developed this equation based on the equation used in the EU to develop its regulations for clean water pumps, translated to 60 Hz electrical input power and U.S. customary units.
Regarding the significance of the 555.6 value in equation (5) and its impact on the number of significant digits in the resultant minimally compliant pump efficiency (
DOE added sufficient significant digits to ensure efficiency can be reported to 4 significant digits (
In equation (6), the specific speed (N
DOE notes that, in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, the definition of specific speed did not indicate that the H
As proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, the calculated efficiency of the minimally compliant pump reflects the pump efficiency at BEP. To calculate PER
DOE also proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR that the quotient of the hydraulic output power divided by the minimally compliant pump efficiency for the rated pump would be used to determine the input power to a minimally compliant pump at each load point, and that the pump hydraulic output power for the minimally compliant pump would be the same as that for the particular pump being evaluated. Specifically, DOE proposed that the hydraulic power in equation (8) at 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow would be calculated using the following equation (9):
As indicated in equation (8), the calculated shaft input power for the minimally compliant pump at each load point is then combined with a minimally compliant motor for that default motor type and appropriate size, as described in section III.D.1, and the default part load loss curve, as described in section III.D.2, to determine the input power to the motor at each load point.
As noted previously, HI and CA IOUs expressed their support of DOE's proposed approach. (HI, No. 8 at p. 7; CA IOUs, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at p. 110) HI also pointed out in its written comments that η
Regarding the calculation of pump hydraulic output power presented in equation (9), DOE notes that the equation presented in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR specifies a denominator of 3956. 80 FR 17586, 17605 (April 1, 2015). DOE notes that this value represents the unit conversion from the product of flow (Q) in gpm, head in ft, and specific gravity (which is dimensionless), to horsepower. Conversely, DOE observes that HI 40.6-2014 specifies a value of 3960 in section 40.6.6.2 in regards to calculating pump efficiency. HI 40.6-2014 does not specify a specific unit conversion factor for the purposes of calculating pump hydraulic output power. Instead HI 40.6-2014 provides the following equation (10) for determining pump power output:
As shown in equation (10), the unit conversion factor can be derived from the product of density and acceleration due to gravity. An analysis was performed to convert from the metric units for density and acceleration due to gravity specified in HI 40.6-2014 to the appropriate units. This analysis found the value of 3956 to be more accurate and have a greater amount of precision than the 3960 value specified in HI 40.6-2014. DOE notes that, in its submitted comments, HI suggested a definition for hydraulic power as “the mechanical power transferred to the liquid as it passes through the pump, also known as pump output power. (Refer to HI 40.6−2014)” and provided the following equation (11):
However, as noted above, DOE believes a unit conversion of 3956 is more accurate. Therefore, to ensure consistent calculations and results in the DOE test procedure, in this final rule DOE is maintaining a unit conversion factor of 3956 instead of the 3960 value specified in HI 40.6-2014 and clarifying that the 3960 calculation in section 40.6.6.2 of HI 40.6-2014 should not be used. The calculation and rounding requirements for the pumps test procedure are described further in section III.C.2.f.
To determine PEI
Regarding the determination of bare pump performance, the CIP Working Group recommended that whatever procedure DOE adopts, it should be consistent with HI 40.6-2014 for determining bare pump performance. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #10 at pg. 4) In preparation of the April 2015 pump test procedure NOPR, DOE reviewed HI 40.6-2014 and determined that it contains the relevant test methods needed to accurately characterize the performance of the pumps that would be addressed by this rulemaking, with a few minor modifications noted in section III.C.2. Specifically, HI 40.6-2014 defines and explains how to calculate pump power input,
Accordingly, in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference HI 40.6-2014 as part of DOE's test procedure for measuring the energy consumption of pumps, with the minor modifications and exceptions listed in III.C.2.a through III.C.2.f of the NOPR document and discussed in more detail in section III.C.2 of this final rule. 80 FR 17586, 17607-12 (April 1, 2015).
HI commented that it agrees with using HI 40.6-2014 as the basis of DOE test procedure for pumps. (HI, No. 8 at p. 15) DOE received no other comments on this proposal in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR and, therefore, is incorporating by reference HI 40.6-2014 as the basis for the DOE pumps test procedure, with the minor modifications and exceptions listed in section III.C.2 of this final rule.
In general, DOE finds the test methods contained within HI 40.6-2014 are sufficiently specific and reasonably designed to produce test results that accurately measure the energy efficiency and energy use of applicable pumps. However, as proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE believes a few minor modifications are necessary to ensure repeatable and reproducible test results and to provide measurement methods and equipment specifications for the entire scope of pumps that DOE is addressing as part of this final rule. DOE's proposed modifications and clarifications to HI 40.6-2014, comments received on those topics, DOE's responses to those comments, and any changes to the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR proposals that DOE is making as a result are addressed in the subsequent sections III.C.2.a through III.C.2.f.
While DOE is referencing HI 40.6-2014 as the basis for its test procedure, in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE noted that some sections of the standard are not applicable to DOE's regulatory framework. Specifically, DOE noted that section 40.6.5.3 provides requirements regarding the generation of a test report and appendix “B” provides guidance on test report formatting, both of which are not required for testing and rating pumps in accordance with DOE's procedure. In addition, DOE noted that section A.7 of appendix A, “Testing at temperatures exceeding 30 °C (86 °F),” HI 40.6-2014 addresses testing at temperatures above 30 °C (86 °F), which is inconsistent with DOE's proposal to only test with liquids meeting the definition of “clear water” established in section 40.6.5.5 of HI 40.6-2014. As such, DOE proposed not incorporating by reference section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B of HI 40.6-2014. 80 FR 17586, 17608 (April 1, 2015).
HI commented that it agrees with the proposal to not incorporate by reference section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B of HI 40.6-2014 as part of the DOE test procedure. (HI, No. 8 at 15) DOE received no other comments on this proposal in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR and, as such, is adopting the proposal in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR to incorporate by reference HI 40.6-2014 except for section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B in this final rule.
In reviewing the relevant sections of HI 40.6-2014, DOE also noted that section 40.6.4.1, “Vertically suspended pumps,” which contains specific testing instructions for vertically suspended VS1 and VS3 pumps, mentions VS0 pumps. Specifically, section 40.6.4.1 states “A variation to this is pump type VS0 . . . [a] VS0 [pump] is evaluated as a pump end only similar to the bowl performance and efficiency described for the line-shafted product.” DOE notes that this language in HI 40.6-2014 is intended to exclude VS0 pumps from the specifications in section 40.6.4.1 and specify that testing for VS0, as a type of vertical turbine pump, must consider only bowl assembly total head and, for VTS bare pumps, only the bowl assembly power input, as defined in section 40.6.2 of HI 40.6-2014. However, DOE believes that the language of section 40.6.4.1 is somewhat confusing and may lead to misinterpretation by some not familiar with all the varieties of vertical turbine and vertically suspended pumps and their specific testing considerations. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is clarifying that the specifications of section 40.6.4.1 of HI 40.6-2014 do not apply to VTS pumps and that the performance of VTS bare pumps considers the bowl performance only. For VTS pumps sold with motors evaluated using the testing-based approaches discussed in section III.E.2, the bowl assembly total head and driver power input are to be used to determine the pump performance.
In order to ensure the repeatability of test data and results, the DOE pump test procedure must provide instructions regarding how to sample and collect data at each load point such that the collected data are taken at stabilized conditions that accurately and precisely represent the performance of the pump at that load point. Section 40.6.5.5.1 of HI 40.6-2014 provides that all measurements shall be made under steady state conditions, which are described as follows: (1) No vortexing, (2) margins as specified in ANSI/HI 9.6.1 Rotodynamic Pumps Guideline for NPSH Margin, and (3) when the mean value of all measured quantities required for the test data point remains constant within the permissible amplitudes of fluctuations defined in Table 40.6.3.2.2 over a minimum period of 10 seconds before performance data are collected. HI 40.6-2014 does not specify the measurement interval for determination of steady state operation. However, DOE understands that a minimum of two stabilization measurements are required to calculate an average. DOE proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR that the stabilization measurement interval should not be greater than 5 seconds, thereby allowing for no fewer than two separate measurements that each have an integration time of no more than 5 seconds. 80 FR 17586, 17606 (April 1, 2015).
Section 40.6.3.2.2 of HI 40.6-2014, “Permissible fluctuations,” also provides that permissible damping devices may be used to minimize noise and large fluctuations in the data in order to achieve the specifications noted in Table 40.6.3.2.2. In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to specify that damping devices would only be permitted to integrate up to the measurement interval to ensure that each stabilization data point is reflective of a separate measurement. 80 FR 17586, 17606 (April 1, 2015).
DOE requested comment on its proposal to require that data be
DOE also requested comment on its proposal to allow damping devices, as described in section 40.6.3.2.2, but with integration limited to the data collection interval and HI commented that it agrees with this proposal except with respect to the interval used for data collection. (HI, No. 8 at p. 16)
After reviewing HI's comments and considering the proposal in the April 2015 pump test procedure NOPR, DOE maintains that at least two unique measurements, at a minimum, are necessary to determine stabilization prior to recording a measurement at a given load point. DOE also agrees with HI that it is appropriate to continue to reference the requirements for permissible fluctuations and minimum duration of stabilization testing, as detailed in HI 40.6-2014 sections 40.6.3.2.2 and 40.6.5.5.1. However, in light of HI's concern regarding automated data collection requirements if the interval of data collection is specified as 5 seconds, DOE has determined that a threshold for the data collection interval does not need to be specified to determine steady state operation provided the other requirements for stabilization are satisfied. That is, provided that at least two unique measurements are recorded, their mean computed, and that the two unique measurements are not farther away from the mean than the tolerance specified in the “permissible amplitude of fluctuation” table (Table 40.6.3.2.2) in HI 40.6-2014, the pump can be determined to be stabilized and data recorded for the purposes of conducting the DOE test procedure. DOE notes that section 40.6.5.5.1 requires that steady state be determined for a minimum of 10 seconds, but that a longer time can be used if necessary, in which case the two unique measurements could be recorded more than 5 seconds apart. For example, if a facility were not equipped with a data acquisition system, stabilization could be determined over 1 minute and data taken every 30 seconds to determine stabilized operation at each flow point.
Regarding the use of damping devices, DOE is maintaining the requirements that the integration time for each measurement cannot be greater than the measurement interval. This is necessary to ensure that the measurements used to determine stabilization are, in fact, unique. Therefore, in this test procedure final rule, DOE is adopting stabilization requirements consistent with HI section 40.6.3.2.2 and section 40.6.5.5.1, except that at least two unique measurements must be used to determine stabilization and any damping devices are only permitted to integrate up to the data collection interval. DOE notes that, for physical dampening devices, the pressure indicator/signal must register 99 percent of a sudden change in pressure over the measurement interval to satisfy the requirement for unique measurements, consistent with annex D of ISO 3966:2008(E), “Measurement of fluid flow in closed conduits—Velocity area method using Pitot static tubes,” which is referenced in HI 40.6-2014 for measuring flow with pitot tubes.
Sections 40.6.5.6 and 40.6.5.7 of HI 40.6-2014 specify test arrangements and test conditions. However, DOE finds that the standardized test conditions described in these sections are not sufficient to produce accurate and repeatable test results. To address these potential sources of variability or ambiguity, in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt several additional requirements regarding the nominal pump speed, the input power characteristics, and the number of stages to test for multi-stage pumps to further specify the procedures for testing pumps in a standardized and repeatable manner. 80 FR 17586, 17608 (April 1, 2015).
The rotating speed of a pump affects the efficiency and PEI
DOE proposed that, for pumps sold without motors, the nominal speed would be selected based on the speed of rotation for which the pump is designed to be operated, while for pumps sold with motors, the nominal speed of rotation would be selected based on the speed(s) for which the motor is designed to operate. DOE also clarified that pumps designed to operate at speeds that include both ranges would be rated at both nominal speeds of rotations since each nominal speed rating represents a different basic model of pump. Finally, DOE noted that these speed ranges are not exclusive. That is, if a pump were to be designed to operate from 2,600 to 4,000 rpm, such a pump
In DOE's April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR proposal, DOE acknowledged that it may not be feasible to operate pumps during the test at exactly the nominal speeds of 3,600 or 1,800 rpm and noted that section 40.6.5.5.2 of HI 40.6-2014 allows for tested speeds up to 20 percent off of the nominal speed, provided the tested speed does not vary more than ±1 percent at each load point as required by section 40.6.3.2.2 of HI 40.6-2014. However, to ensure consistent and comparable test results, DOE proposed that all data collected during the test procedure at the speed measured during the test should be adjusted to the nominal speed prior to use in subsequent calculations and the PEI
DOE requested comment on its proposal to require data collected at the pump speed measured during testing to be normalized to the nominal speeds of 1,800 and 3,600 rpm. HI commented that it agrees with the proposal. (HI, No. 8 at p. 16)
Therefore, in this test procedure final rule, DOE is opting to adopt the operating speed limits proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR and discussed in section III.A.4 for the purposes of applying this test procedure final rule.
DOE also requested comment on its proposal to adopt the requirements in HI 40.6-2014 regarding the deviation of tested speed from nominal speed and the variation of speed during the test, specifically regarding whether maintaining tested speed within ±1 percent of the nominal speed is feasible and whether this approach would produce more accurate and repeatable test results. HI commented that it does not believe it is feasible to maintain tested speed within ±1 percent of the specified nominal speed because typical motor speed-load curves do not meet this criterion. (HI, No. 8 at p. 16) However, HI also noted that data could be collected and rotating speed maintained at ±1 percent for a particular data collection point. DOE believes that HI may have misinterpreted the proposal in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR. In the NOPR, DOE proposed maintaining the speed of rotation at each test point within the ±1 percent speed tolerance, but that the speed of rotation at each test point could vary from the nominal speed of rotation ±20 percent, consistent with HI 40.6−2014. DOE agrees that the ±1 percent speed tolerance is applicable to determining stabilization at each data collection point only and is not determined relative to nominal speed and, therefore, is adopting the April 2015 pump test procedure NOPR proposal to adopt the nominal speed tolerances listed in section 40.6.5.5.2 of HI 40.6-2014, as well as the stabilization requirements provided in section 40.6.3.2.2 of HI 40.6-2014 in this test procedure final rule. Additionally, DOE is adopting the provisions that all measured data be translated to the nominal rating speed.
Because pump power consumption is a component of the proposed metric, inclusive of any motor and continuous or non-continuous controls, measuring power consumption is an important element of the test. The characteristics of the power supplied to the pump affect the accuracy and repeatability of the measured power consumption of the pump. As such, to ensure accurate and repeatable measurement of power consumption, in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE specified nominal values for voltage, frequency, voltage unbalance, total harmonic distortion (THD), and impedance levels, as well as tolerances about each of these quantities, that must be maintained at the input terminals to the motor, continuous control, or non-continuous control, as applicable when performing the testing-based methods or when using a calibrated motor to determine bare pump performance. 80 FR 17586, 17610 (April 1, 2015).
To determine the appropriate power supply characteristics for testing pumps with motors (but without continuous or non-continuous controls) and pumps with both motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, DOE examined applicable test methods for electric motors and VSD systems. DOE determined that the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 112-2004, “IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators,” (IEEE 112-2004) and the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) C390-10, “Test methods, marking requirements, and energy efficiency levels for three-phase induction motors,” (CSA C390-10) are the most relevant test methods for measuring input power to electric motors, as they are the test methods incorporated by reference as the DOE test procedure for electric motors. Other widely referenced industry standard test methods for motors include: IEC 60034-1 Edition 12.0 2010-02, “Rotating electrical machines—Part 1: Rating and performance” (IEC 60034-1:2010) and NEMA MG 1-2014, “Motors and Generators” (NEMA MG 1-2014). DOE also identified both AHRI 1210-2011, “2011 Standard for Performance Rating of Variable Frequency Drives,” (AHRI 1210-2011) and the 2013 version of CSA Standard C838, “Energy efficiency test methods for three-phase variable frequency drive systems,” (CSA C838-13) as applicable methods for measuring the performance of VSD control systems. A summary of DOE's proposed power supply characteristics and the requirements of the industry standards DOE referenced in developing such a proposal are summarized in Table III.4.
HI commented that it disagrees with the power conditioning requirements proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR; knows of no pump test labs that meet them; and views them as a significant and unnecessary burden to manufacturers that were not agreed to by the CIP Working Group. HI specifically cited costs associated with the proposed limitation on voltage unbalance, and noted that the nominal motor efficiency values used for the calculation method have a less stringent tolerance of 2 percent. HI also indicated that testing with unconditioned power will result in a lower efficiency value and a higher PEI value than when testing with conditioned power. HI proposed that whereas conditioned power, as proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, should be used for DOE enforcement testing and motor calibration, manufacturer test labs should only be held to the 3 percent limit for driver input power fluctuation specified in HI 40.6-2014. (HI, No. 8 at pp. 16-18)
Regal Beloit stated during the April 2015 NOPR public meeting that motor manufacturers faced similar challenges when motor standards were introduced, and third-party test labs adapted to help meet the power conditioning requirements. Regal Beloit also indicated that AHRI 1210 was not developed for pumps, and CSA C838 would be preferred. In addition, Regal Beloit expressed concern that any loosening of the power conditioning requirements could hinder differentiation between lower and higher performing products. (Regal Beloit, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at pp. 137-46)
As noted in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE recognizes that driver efficiency can vary: (a) When the input voltage level is not exactly at the nameplate voltage, (b) when the fundamental frequency of the input voltage waveform is not exactly 60 Hz, (c) when input voltage phases are unbalanced, and/or (d) when the input voltage waveform is not strictly sinusoidal. However, DOE acknowledges the concerns of HI regarding the burden of providing power meeting strict voltage, frequency, voltage unbalance, and THD limits. As EPCA requires DOE test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)), DOE, in this final rule, is reconsidering the proposed requirements regarding the power supply characteristics to find a compromise among repeatability, accuracy, and test burden.
DOE notes that HI's proposal of a ±3 percent tolerance on power is not feasible without some parameters around power supply characteristics, as variation in voltage unbalance, harmonics, voltage, and frequency will affect the variability in the measurement of input power to the pump insofar as it will affect the performance and efficiency of the motor. That is, for example, increased voltage unbalance will affect motor performance such that testing the same pump sold with a motor under differing voltage unbalance conditions will result in different measured pump performance. This can be viewed either as: (1) Different (typically lower) hydraulic output for the same input power to the motor or (2) different (typically increased) input power to the motor to deliver the same hydraulic output power.
Under the latter scenario, DOE has developed an approach to correlate variability in power supply characteristics with variability in the measured input power to the motor. Similarly, DOE separately considered how variability in power supply characteristics would impact input power to the continuous or non-continuous controls. Specifically, DOE determined, for each power supply characteristic (
Regarding the impact of variation in voltage, section 12.44.1 of NEMA MG 1-2014 specifies that AC motors shall operate successfully under running conditions at rated load with a variation in the voltage up to ±10 percent of rated (nameplate) voltage with rated frequency for induction motors. Similarly, according to Figure 5-1 in the DOE Advanced Manufacturing Office (AMO) “Premium Efficiency Motor Selection and Application Guide” (AMO motor handbook), the efficiency of a “pre-EPAct”
Considering the impact of frequency on the rated performance of pumps and motors, the AMO motor handbook states that a premium efficiency motor is usually 0.5 to 2.0 percent more efficient when operating at 60 Hz than when the same motor is driven by a 50-Hz power supply, suggesting that motor performance is not strongly dependent on frequency. However, section C.4.1 of HI 40.6-2014 indicates that when a calibrated motor is used to determine the pump input power, the frequency shall be the same as used during the calibration of the motor with a tolerance of ±1 percent. DOE believes that the HI requirement would be equally applicable to determining the performance of pumps sold with motors and pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls under the testing-based methods to ensure repeatable and accurate measurements. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is relaxing the proposal in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR to instead limit frequency variation of ±1.0 percent of nameplate frequency, consistent with HI 40.6-2014. DOE also notes that the U.S. electric grid typically provides power at a frequency within these bounds and, as such, DOE believe such a tolerance will not impose undue test burden. Further, DOE believes that maintaining tolerances consistent with the typical U.S. electric power supply is necessary to ensure repeatability of the test and ensure that the test is representative of the energy consumption of the equipment. Specifically, a specification of ±1 percent is consistent with the ±1 percent tolerance for continuous operation across all durations of off-nominal frequency specified in the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Standard PRC-024-1, “Generator Frequency and Voltage Protective Relay Settings.”
Regarding voltage unbalance, DOE notes that motor performance will vary as a function of voltage unbalance. Specifically, NEMA MG 1-2014 includes a horsepower derating curve for up to 5 percent voltage unbalance and recommends limiting voltage unbalance to 1 percent, noting that motor performance will not necessarily be the same as when the motor is operating with a balanced voltage at the motor terminals. Similarly, Table 5-3 in the AMO motor handbook relates a voltage unbalance of 3 percent to a decrease in motor efficiency of 2 to 3 percent, compared with a decrease of 5 percent or more for a voltage unbalance of 5 percent.
Given the dependence of motor, and thus pump, performance on voltage unbalance, DOE then evaluated the relative burden associated with providing different levels of voltage unbalance in the test facility, in an effort to determine a level of voltage unbalance that would not be unduly burdensome to specify in the test procedure. DOE researched typical levels of voltage unbalance available on the national electric grid, based on utility standards and specifications for generation and distribution of power. NEMA MG 1-2014 states that if a motor is subjected to more than 1 percent voltage unbalance the manufacturer should be consulted regarding this unusual service condition, and the AMO motor handbook states that unbalances exceeding 1 percent will void most manufacturers' warranties. DOE also found that PG&E Electric Rule No. 2 states that the voltage balance between phases for service delivery voltages will be maintained by PG&E as close as practicable to 2.5 percent.
Regarding limitations on harmonic distortion on the power supply, the AMO publication, “Improving Motor and Drive System Performance” (AMO motor sourcebook) states that electrical equipment is often rated to handle 5 percent THD (as defined in IEEE Std 519), and notes that motors are typically much less sensitive to harmonics than computers or communication systems.
DOE also discussed source impedance in the NOPR and considered adopting specifications in AHRI 1210-2011 (source impedance ≤1 percent) or CSA C838-13 (source impedance > 1.0 percent of VFD and ≤ 3.0 percent of VFD) for motors and speed controls. 80 FR 17586, 17611-12 (April 1, 2015). DOE understands that a nonlinear load can distort the voltage waveform, depending on the magnitudes of the source impedance and current distortion.
Regarding the impact of variation in power supply characteristics on continuous and non-continuous controls, DOE understands that motors, continuous controls, and non-continuous controls all have similar power conditioning requirements because they will be subjected to similar electrical conditions in the field. That is, based on DOE's research, manufacturers appear to have designed motors to be reasonably tolerant of variability in power supply characteristics (or power quality) that are characteristic of typical grid operation, but their performance is significantly impacted at levels outside the bounds of that commonly experienced in their field. While less information is available of the response of continuous and non-continuous controls to these power supply variables, DOE expects this relationship to be true for such controls as well. For example, NEMA guidance published in 2007 states that adjustable frequency controls can operate on power systems with a voltage unbalance not exceeding 3 percent.
DOE notes that these requirements are applicable to pumps sold with motors and pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls rated using the testing-based method, as such methods require measurement of electrical input power to the motor or control. Commensurately, these requirements are applicable to any pumps rated using a calculation-based method, including bare pumps, pumps sold with applicable electric motors, and pumps sold with applicable electric motors and continuous controls, when the bare pump is tested using a calibrated motor to determine pump shaft input power. Pumps evaluated based on the calculation method where the input power to the motor is determined using equipment other than a calibrated motor would not have to meet these requirements, as variations in voltage, frequency, voltage unbalance, and voltage THD are not expected to significantly affect the tested pump's energy performance.
RSV and VTS pumps are typically multi-stage pumps that may be offered in a variety of stages.
• RSV: 3 stages; and
• VTS: 9 stages.
If a model is not available with that specific number of stages, the model would be tested with the next closest number of stages distributed in commerce by the manufacturer, or the next higher number of stages if both the next lower and next higher number of stages are equivalently close to the required number of stages. This is consistent with DOE's proposal, discussed previously in section III.A.1.c, that variation in number of stages for RSV and VTS pumps would not be a characteristic that constitutes different basic models. 80 FR 17586, 17610 (April 1, 2015).
In response to DOE's proposal regarding testing of multi-stage RSV and VTS pumps, HI commented that it agrees with this proposal. (HI, No. 8 at p. 18) DOE received no other comments on this proposal and has, therefore, adopted the provisions for testing multi-stage RSV and VTS pumps proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR with no modifications.
A twin head pump is a type of IL pump that contains two impeller assemblies, mounted in two volutes that share a single inlet and discharge in a common casing. In response to the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE received comment from HI recommending that DOE include twin head pumps in this rulemaking and align their test procedure with Europump guidelines.
DOE agrees with HI's recommendation and, as discussed in section III.A.2.a, originally intended to include these pumps as a category of IL pumps. To clarify DOE's original intent in this final rule, DOE is adopting a definition of twin head pump, specifying that twin head pumps are a subset of the IL pump equipment category, and modifying the test procedure in this final rule to be consistent with the EU guidelines. DOE's definition for twin head pump and the modified IL definition are presented in section III.A.2.a. However, DOE also acknowledges that clarifications to the test procedure proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR are necessary to explicitly specify the procedures for testing twin head pumps in accordance with the DOE test procedure. As such, DOE is establishing explicit instructions for configuring twin head pumps in this final rule.
In general, twin head pumps, as a subset of IL pumps, are tested in accordance with the test procedure for IL pumps. Specifically, twin head pumps, which are essentially two IL pumps packaged together in a single casing, are to be tested using an equivalent single-head IL configuration. That is, to test a twin head pump, one of the two impeller assemblies is to be incorporated into an adequate, IL style, single impeller volute and casing. An adequate, IL style, single impeller volute and casing means a volute and casing for which any physical and functional characteristics that affect energy consumption and energy efficiency are essentially identical to their corresponding characteristics for a single impeller in the twin head pump volute and casing.
HI 40.6-2014 provides a specific procedure for determining BEP for a given pump based on seven load points at 40, 60, 75, 90, 100, 110 and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow of the pump. The test protocol in section 40.6.6.2 of HI 40.6-2014 requires that the hydraulic power and the pump shaft input power, or input power to the motor for pumps tested using the testing-based methods, be measured at each of the seven load points. HI 40.6-2014 further specifies that the pump efficiency be determined as the hydraulic power divided by the shaft input power, or as the hydraulic power divided by the product of the measured input power to the motor and the known efficiency of a calibrated motor, depending on how the pump is tested. The equations for calculating pump efficiency are shown in equation (12):
The pump efficiency at each of these load points is then used to determine the tested BEP for a given pump and, in particular, the flow rate associated with the BEP of the pump (
In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE observed that the specific load points measured in the test protocol may not be exactly at 75, 100, or 110 percent of the BEP flow load points specified in the test procedure and, thus, the relevant power input measurements—specifically, pump shaft input power, input power to the pump at the driver, or input power to the continuous or non-continuous controls—must be adjusted to reflect the power input at the specific load points specified in the test procedure. To adjust the measured power input values, DOE proposed that the measured input power and flow data corresponding to the load point from 60 percent of expected BEP flow to 120 percent of expected BEP flow be linearly regressed and the input power at the specific load point of 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow be determined from that regression equation. 80 FR 17586, 17610-11 (April 1, 2015).
In response to the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, HI commented that it agrees with DOE's proposal to use a linear regression of the pump input power with respect to flow rate at all the tested load points greater than or equal to 60 percent of expected BEP flow to determine the pump shaft input power at the specified load points of 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow. (HI, No. 8 at p. 18) DOE received no other comments on the proposal and, as such, is adopting it as proposed in the April 2015 pump test procedure NOPR with no revisions or modifications.
HI 40.6-2014 contains a method for determining the BEP of tested pumps based on the flow rate at which the maximum pump efficiency occurs. DOE recognizes that there may be some unique pump models that do not exhibit the typical parabolic relationship of pump efficiency to flow rate. Instead, for some pumps, pump efficiency will continue to increase as a function of flow until reaching the maximum allowable flow that can be developed without damaging the pump, also referred to as “pump run-out.” Similarly, the expected BEP of some pumps may be only slightly below the maximum allowable flow. For such pumps, it may not be possible to use the procedure described in HI 40.6-2014 to determine the BEP, since the pump cannot safely operate at flows of 110 and/or 120 percent of the expected BEP of the pump. In such cases, DOE proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR that the seven flow points for determination of BEP should be 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 percent of the expected maximum allowable flow rate of the pump instead of the seven flow points described in section 40.6.5.5.1 of HI 40.6-2014. In addition, in such cases, DOE proposed that the specified constant load flow points should be 100, 90, and 65 percent
In response, HI commented that it disagreed with this proposal because in order to determine the location of the BEP, testing must occur at rates of flow greater than 100 percent of expected BEP flow. (HI, No. 8, p. 18) DOE notes that the proposal in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR is specified with respect to the expected maximum allowable flow rate, or the expected BEP, of the pump, not the measured BEP flow. That is, under the NOPR proposal, pumps with the expected BEP occurring at the maximum allowable flow, as defined in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014, would be tested at the alternative load points specified in test procedure for pumps with BEP at run-out.
DOE acknowledges that pump manufacturers must have some knowledge of the expected operational characteristics of their pump, including the expected BEP and expected maximum allowable flow, in order to determine the appropriate load points for determining BEP. However, DOE notes that this is the case for all pumps, not just pumps with BEP at run-out. That is, the specific load points used to determine BEP for all pumps are specified with respect to the expected operating characteristics of the pump (
DOE notes that, in the April 2015 NOPR, DOE referred to pumps with BEP at run-out as corresponding to those with their expected BEP at the expected maximum allowable flow. DOE recognizes that pumps with their maximum allowable flow occurring between 100 and 120 percent of BEP flow would also not be able to be tested in accordance with the proposed test procedure, as not all of the load points specified in the procedure could be measured in accordance with the test procedure. As such, DOE is adopting, in this final rule, the proposal described in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, except that DOE is clarifying that pumps with maximum allowable flow occurring between 100 and 120 of BEP flow also qualify as pumps with BEP at run-out and must apply the appropriate test procedure. To ensure that the DOE test procedure is consistent and adequately captures the range of flow rates with which the pump is expected to operate, DOE is maintaining in this final rule that load points for determination of BEP are specified with respect to the expected maximum allowable flow of the pump, for pumps with the expected BEP within 20 percent of the expected maximum allowable flow. In the final rule, DOE is also clarifying the specific load points that must be used in determining pump or driver input power in accordance with the procedure described in section III.C.2.d.
In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE noted that HI 40.6-2014 does not contain all the necessary methods and calculations to determine pump power consumption for the range of equipment that will be addressed by this final rule (
DOE requested comment on the type and accuracy of required measurement equipment, especially the equipment required for electrical power measurements for pumps sold with motors having continuous or non-continuous controls. AHRI commented that AHRI 1210-2011 specifies appropriate power supply tolerances so that both pump manufacturers and DOE enforcement testing can be confident with the establishment and verification of ratings of VFDs sold with pumps. (AHRI, No. 11 at pp. 1-2) AHRI also indicated that any harmonics in the power system can affect the measured performance of the pump when tested with a motor or motor and continuous or non-continuous control. In addition, AHRI notified DOE that VFD manufacturers are working to expand the scope of AHRI 1210-2011 to include a higher horsepower upper limit and to include additional load points.
HI commented that it disagrees with the requirements in AHRI 1210-2011 and CSA C838-13, asserting that they were not agreed to by the CIP Working Group and would be excessively burdensome. (HI, No. 8 at pp. 18-19) HI also indicated that pump manufacturers do not have the same equipment as motor and drive test laboratories and should not be expected to have the same level of instrumentation. HI recommended that DOE instead require the ±2.0 percent maximum permissible measurement device uncertainty specified in Table 40.6.3.2.3 of HI 40.6-2014 for driver input power.
In response to HI's concerns regarding the burden of such additional instrumentation, DOE notes that, in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR proposal, such sophisticated electric measurement equipment was only proposed to be required for the
In addition, given the power conditioning requirements adopted in section III.C.2.c, DOE believes that the more sophisticated electrical measurement equipment capable of measuring true root mean square (RMS) voltage, true RMS current, and real power for distorted waveforms is required to ensure that the incoming power is within the specifications for those pump configurations where it is required and that the power measurement is accurate. Specifically, DOE is requiring, as discussed at length in section III.C.2.c, certain voltage, frequency, voltage unbalance, and voltage THD levels be maintained when testing: (1) Bare pumps using a calibrated motor, (2) pumps sold with motors using the testing-based methods, and (3) pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls using the testing-based method. In order to verify that these requirements are met, measurement equipment must be capable of accurately measuring real power, true RMS voltage, frequency, voltage unbalance, and voltage THD. DOE notes that, in section C.4.3, HI 40.6 specifies that driver input power to the motor should be calculated as the product of (1) line volts, (2) line amps, and (3) power factor. As HI 40.6-2014 specifies the measurement of power factor, DOE believes that the electric equipment capable of measuring at least real power, true RMS voltage, and true RMS current is already required by HI 40.6-2014, as such measurements are necessary for determining power factor.
Some watt meters and watt-hour meters would not be sufficient for accurate measurement of real power for distorted voltage waveforms or distorted current waveforms; this is because such instruments incorrectly assume that the waveforms are perfectly sinusoidal (
However, with respect to the required accuracy of any electrical measurement equipment, DOE acknowledges the concern from HI regarding the additional burden associated with acquiring instrumentation consistent with the specifications provided in the NOPR. As such, DOE reviewed available and applicable test methods for motors and controls, including AHRI 1210-2011 and CSA C838-13. DOE notes that AHRI 1210-2011 in turn references IEC 61000-4-7, “Testing and measurement techniques—General guide on harmonics and interharmonics measurements and instrumentation, for power supply systems and equipment connected thereto,” regarding the necessary characteristics for electric measurement equipment. IEC 61000-4-7 provides requirements for Class I instruments and recommends their use where precise measurements are necessary, such as for verifying compliance with standards. The maximum error on power for IEC Class I instruments is ±1 percent of measured value for readings greater than or equal to 150 W (0.2 hp). However, IEC 61000-4-7 states that the error limits refer to single-frequency (
The requirements in IEC 61000-4-7 generally align with those in section 5.7.3 of CSA C390-10, which specifies that motor input power measurements shall have a maximum uncertainty of ±1.0 percent of the reading (including all errors from the power meter, current transformers, and potential/voltage transformers). However, CSA also states that the specified uncertainties shall apply only at the rated full load (
DOE recognizes that the accuracy of input power measurements can be compromised to some extent when voltage and/or current waveforms are displaced and/or distorted. In addition, DOE recognizes that motors will not always be fully loaded during pump testing, that motors may be operated somewhat above nameplate voltage (as allowed in this final rule), and that some distortion of the voltage waveform is permitted in this final rule. Therefore, DOE believes it is appropriate to allow electrical equipment accuracy of ±2.0 percent of measured value, consistent with the tolerance specified in section 40.6.3.2.3 of HI 40.6-2014 and HI's request. DOE is adopting such a requirement in this final rule.
DOE also recognizes that current and voltage instrument transformers can be used in conjunction with electrical measurement equipment to measure current and voltage. Usage of instrument transformers can introduce additional losses and errors to the measurement system. DOE is clarifying in this final rule that the combined accuracy of all instruments used to measure a parameter must meet the prescribed accuracy requirements for electrical measurement equipment. Section C.4.1 of AHRI 1210-2011 indicates that combined accuracy should be calculated by multiplying the accuracies of individual instruments. In contrast, section 5.7.2 of CSA C838-2013 indicates that if all components of the power measuring system cannot be calibrated together as a system, the total error shall be calculated from the square root of the sum of the squares of all the errors. DOE understands that it is more accurate to combine independent accuracies (
Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is specifying the characteristics of the
While DOE acknowledges that these requirements may represent a burden for some manufacturers and test labs who do not already have such equipment, DOE has minimized the additional burden associated with this requirement, to the extent possible, by only requiring more sophisticated power measurement equipment in those cases where it is necessary to verify that the test procedure power conditioning requirements are being met. DOE also notes that, for many pumps, the testing-based approaches are optional and a manufacturer could elect to determine the PEI using the calculation-based approach and avoid having to purchase and use the more accurate and expensive electrical measurement equipment necessary for conducting testing under the testing-based approach. The burden associated with this test procedure, and in particular the required test equipment, is discussed further in section IV.B.
DOE notes HI 40.6-2014 does not specify how to round values for calculation and reporting purposes. DOE recognizes that the manner in which values are rounded can affect the resulting PER or PEI, and all PER or PEI values should be reported with the same number of significant digits. In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to require that all calculations be performed with the raw measured data, to ensure accuracy, and that the PER
DOE requested comment on its proposal to conduct all calculations using raw measured values and that the PER
DOE appreciates HI's confirmation of the proposed approach. In response to HI's suggestion that DOE clarify that all calculations are to be performed with “raw normalized data,” DOE notes that the normalization to nominal speed is also a calculation and that such calculation is also to be performed with raw measured data. Also, some collected data do not need to be normalized to nominal speed. As such, DOE finds it clearer to continue to specify that all calculations be performed with raw measured data, including the normalization to nominal speed.
In addition, in preparing the final rule test procedure provisions, DOE reviewed the calculations, uncertainty, and significance of measured values used to determine the PER
The PEI
In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that the motor efficiency would be determined based on the configuration in which the pump was sold. For determining the default motor efficiency of a minimally compliant pump (PER
Based on DOE's proposed test procedure, the applicable Federal minimum or the represented nominal full load motor efficiency would then be used to determine the full load losses, in horsepower, associated with that motor. The full load losses would then be adjusted using an algorithm to reflect the motor performance at partial loads, corresponding to the load points specified in the DOE test. These losses would then be combined with the measured pump shaft input power at each load point to determine the PER
For determining the default motor efficiency of a minimally compliant pump (PER
For the determination of PER
• The number of poles selected for the default motor would be equivalent to the nominal speed of the rated pump (
• the motor horsepower selected for a given pump would be required to be either equivalent to, or the next highest horsepower-rated level greater than, the measured pump shaft input power at 120 percent of BEP flow, as determined based on an extrapolation of the linear regression of pump input power (discussed in section III.C.2.d); and
• the lower standard (
As mentioned previously, the appropriate table at 10 CFR 431.25 is the table of nominal full load motor efficiency standards that is currently required for compliance of NEMA Design B polyphase motors.
For pumps sold either with motors or with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, selection of a default nominal full load motor efficiency for calculation of PER
DOE requested comment on its proposal to determine the default motor horsepower for rating bare pumps based on the pump shaft input power at 120 percent of BEP flow and, in response, HI commented that it agrees with this proposal. (HI, No. 8 at p. 19) DOE also requested comment on its proposal to specify the default nominal full load motor efficiency based on the applicable minimally allowed nominal full load motor efficiency specified in DOE's energy conservation standards for NEMA Design B motors at 10 CFR 431.25 for all pumps except pumps sold with submersible motors. HI commented that each NEMA MG 1 nominal efficiency value is the average efficiency of a large population of motors of the same design, so for any given nominal efficiency value, half of the corresponding population would be lower. (HI, No. 8 at p. 19) HI indicated that the NEMA MG 1 minimum efficiency values should be used instead so that the test method for determining PEI
DOE acknowledges the comments from HI and Wilo regarding the use of nominal full load motor efficiency values from 10 CFR 431.25. DOE notes that these values represent the minimum Federal efficiency standard for applicable covered motors and, as such, believes that referencing an alternative, lower efficiency value would be inappropriate and inconsistent with DOE's regulatory framework. However, in response to the specific concern voiced regarding a potential disadvantage when using the testing-based method, DOE will follow the method the manufacturer used to determine the representative value when conducting enforcement testing. In other words, if a pump manufacturer has used the calculation-based rating method to determine the representative value for a pump basic model, then DOE would also use the calculation-based approach, which relies on the nominal full load motor efficiency values from the table and not the actual motor tested performance. Conversely, if a manufacturer elected to use the testing-based approach, DOE would also assess compliance using the testing-based approach which would account for the actual tested efficiency of the motor incorporated into the pump. Thus, a manufacturer need not be concerned that the actual efficiency of an individual motor would have a disparate effect on the measured efficiency during assessment or enforcement testing.
In this final rule, DOE is adopting the default nominal full load motor efficiency values for bare pumps and the method for determining PER
DOE notes that, if DOE were to amend the energy conservation standards for NEMA Design B polyphase motors, the represented values for pump PEI would no longer remain valid, and manufacturers would need to revise their represented values to reflect the amended nominal full load motor efficiency standards and recertify at the first annual certification date after the compliance date for the amended motor Federal energy conservation standards. As a result of the methodology being adopted today, which will result in changes to represented values for pumps when the Federal energy conservation standards for NEMA Design B polyphase motors changes, DOE does not believe that any actual design or manufacturing changes will be required from the pump manufacturer since the bare pump will remain the same and is unaffected by the motor standard. Instead, DOE is ensuring that pump ratings still reflect differential representations depending on the efficiency of the motor that is being sold with the pump. DOE understands that certain motors that were minimally compliant with the previous motor standard may no longer be able to be sold once manufacturers are required to comply with amended standards for motors (if adopted) and thus, DOE believes a methodology which reflects this reality is best. Because the PEI is an indexed value that is meant to compare the performance of the pump being tested to that of a theoretical “minimally-compliant” pump, the default nominal full load motor efficiency for that “minimally-compliant pump” must reflect any changes in the motor standard and available products in the market. If DOE did not adopt a methodology that acknowledges potential changes to the energy conservation standards for NEMA Design B motors, then pump represented values could be artificially inflated when compliance with amended energy conservation standards for motors is required and could result in a situation where a compliant pump could be less efficient due to the credit being given from the amended energy conservation standards for motors.
For these reasons, DOE is specifying in the pumps test procedure adopted in this final rule that when determining PER
DOE notes that submersible motors are not currently subject to the DOE energy conservation standards for electric motors specified at 10 CFR 431.25. Therefore, for the purposes of calculating PEI
As it was not DOE's intent to impact the rated efficiency of submersible motors through this rulemaking, DOE deflated the minimum submersible motor efficiency that DOE observed by using the maximum number of “bands” across a horsepower range to ensure that the value represented a worst-case value. Where no data were available, DOE applied the same number of NEMA bands across the range of motor horsepower and numbers of poles.
In response to the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR proposal, HI commented in the public meeting that several of the minimum motor efficiency values are higher than what is being published. (HI, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at pp. 159-60). In written comments, HI provided corrected efficiencies for several values. (HI, No. 8 at pp. 19-20)
DOE thanks HI for submitting data to assist in constructing a submersible motor efficiency table that is representative of minimally efficient submersible motors. DOE has revised its proposed submersible efficiency values to accommodate the lower values provided by HI, as shown in Table III.7.
During the April 2015 NOPR public meeting, Nidec Corporation (Nidec) expressed that the levels of submersible motors should be consistent with the requirements for vertical motors. Nidec also stated that there be two sets of default efficiency values: one for a dry rotor and one for a wet rotor. (Nidec, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at pp. 160-61) Nidec added that the type with air could use Table 12-12 from NEMA MG 1. (Nidec, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at p. 163)
In response to Nidec's comment, DOE notes that all equipment categories that are subject to the test procedure, including VTS pumps that are most commonly paired with submersible motors, are defined as dry rotor pumps. As such, wet rotor submersible motors
HI stated that DOE needs to emphasize that single-phase motors are not part of the minimum efficiency tables. (HI, No. 8 at pp. 19-21) DOE notes that in this test procedure, as described in section III.A.6, all pumps sold with single-phase motors, including single-phase submersible motors, may be rated as bare pumps in order to not be penalized for the inherently lower efficiencies of single-phase equipment. In the bare pump approach, the default submersible motor efficiency values presented in Table III.7 are used in calculating both the numerator (PER
In regard to selection of default motor size for submersible motors, in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to apply the same sizing method proposed for other categories of pumps, described in section III.D.1 of this NOPR. At the April 2015 NOPR public meeting, HI stated that submersible motors are sold utilizing full NEMA motor service factors and recommended amending the submersible motor sizing to account for this sizing approach. (HI, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at p. 150) In its written comments, HI noted that DOE needs to emphasize that submersible pumps are typically loaded to the fully utilized service factor of the motor. (HI, No. 8 at pp. 19-20)
In response to HI's suggestion, DOE has reviewed the typical service factors of submersible motors offered for sale with pumps within the scope of this test procedure. DOE determined that the majority of submersible motors exhibited service factors of 1.15. DOE notes that this value is also consistent with the service factor prescribed in table 12-4 of NEMA MG-1 2009 for Design A, B, and C polyphase, squirrel cage, general-purpose, alternating-current motors of the open type with a motor horsepower greater than 1 hp. In light of this, DOE is revising its requirements for the default motor sizing of submersible motors in this final rule to reflect the service factors observed in the industry. That is, DOE is specifying that, for VTS bare pumps, the default submersible motor horsepower be determined as the motor horsepower that is equal to or the next highest motor horsepower greater than the pump shaft input power (in horsepower) at 120 percent of BEP flow divided by the service factor, or 1.15. DOE notes that some motors less than 3 horsepower may have a higher service factor, but by using the same value for all pumps, DOE is simplifying the procedure and does not expect this simplification to significantly impact the PEI for VTS bare pumps. This is because the same service factor (1.15) is used for the given pump's PER
DOE reiterates that this default service factor is only necessary for determining the default motor efficiency for submersible motors. For pumps sold with submersible motors and pumps sold with submersible motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, the actual submersible motor size with which the pump is distributed in commerce is used when determining motor efficiency for use in calculating PER
In summary, in this final rule, DOE will allow the use of default nominal full load submersible motor efficiency values presented in Table III.7 to rate (1) VTS bare pumps, (2) pumps sold with submersible motors, and (3) pumps sold with submersible motors and continuous or non-continuous controls as an option instead of using the testing-based approach. DOE believes that allowing the calculation-based method to be used for pumps sold with submersible motors may also reduce the testing burden for some manufacturers. However, if manufacturers wish to account for the use of submersible motors with a higher efficiency than the default nominal full load submersible motor efficiency, they may choose to rate the pump model using the testing-based, wire-to-water method described in section III.E.2.
For pumps sold with motors or motors and continuous or non-continuous controls that are rated using the calculation-based approach, DOE proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR that the nominal full load motor efficiency used in determining the PER
For pumps sold with submersible motors and rated using the calculation-based approach, DOE also proposed that the nominal full load motor efficiency values would be the same as the default nominal full load submersible motor efficiency values used to determine the PER
DOE received no comments on these proposals and is adopting the provisions for specifying the represented nominal full load motor efficiency for motors subject to DOE's electric motor test procedure and the default nominal full load submersible motor efficiency for submersible motors, as proposed. DOE notes that, for pumps sold with motors not addressed by DOE's electric motor test procedure (except submersible motors), the calculation-based methods described in section III.E.1.b would not apply, and no assumption regarding nominal efficiency of the motor paired with the pump is permitted when determining PER
As described in section III.B.2, default nominal full load motor efficiency is converted to motor losses, in horsepower, at each load point to determine the input power to the motor when determining PER
In the proposal, the full load losses of the motor would be determined based on the full load motor efficiency, which would be the default nominal full load motor efficiency described in section III.D.1 for bare pumps and when determining PER
Finally, DOE proposed that the part load losses at each specified load point would be determined based on the product of the full load losses and the part load loss factor at that load point, as shown in equation (15):
These calculated part load motor losses at each of the specified load points would then be combined with the measured pump shaft input power and weighted equally to calculate PER
DOE requested comment on the development and use of the motor part load loss factor curves to describe part load performance of covered motors and submersible motors, including the default motor specified in section III.D.1 for bare pumps and calculation of PER
This change is needed because the proposed part load loss curves were not developed to be representative of
As previously discussed, the PEI
In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that different test methods for determining the PER
• Two potential approaches: (1) Testing-based versus (2) calculation-based;
• three potential configurations: (1) Bare pumps, (2) pumps sold with motors, and (3) pumps sold with motors and controls; and
• two different sub-configuration criteria:
(1) Whether the pump was sold with: (a) a motor covered by DOE's electric motor energy conservation standards, (b) a submersible motor, (c) a motor that is not covered by DOE's electric motor energy conservation standards and is not a submersible motor, or (d) no motor; and
(2) whether the pump was sold with: (a) continuous controls, (b) non-continuous controls, or (c) neither continuous or non-continuous controls.
The applicability of DOE's proposed test methods to different configurations of pumps is summarized in Table III.8.
DOE's proposed applicability of testing-based and calculation-based test methods, as shown in Table III.8, was designed to maximize the number of pumps that can be rated using the less burdensome calculation-based methods A.1, B.1, and C.1. DOE also proposed the applicability of the various test methods to maximize flexibility in rating equipment. That is, where possible, DOE proposed to allow either the calculation-based or the testing-based method to be used to determine the PEI of applicable pump models. 80 FR 17627-28. In this case, if a manufacturer wished to represent the improved performance of a given pump, for example from a motor with improved part load efficiency performance, and believed that the assumptions made in the calculation method would not adequately represent the improved performance of that pump, the manufacturer would be able to use the testing-based methods to rate the PEI
DOE also noted that, since the measured performance of individual units can vary from the average performance of the population or from DOE's assumed values used in the calculation-based approach, it is theoretically possible for the calculation-based approach to generate ratings that are better or worse than the testing-based approach. To address this possibility, DOE proposed that manufacturers report the test method (
DOE requested comment on its proposal to establish calculation-based test methods as the required test method for bare pumps and testing-based methods as the required test method for pumps sold with motors that are not regulated by DOE's electric motor energy conservation standards, except for submersible motors, or for pumps sold with any motors and with non-continuous controls. DOE also requested comment on the proposal to allow either testing-based methods or calculation-based methods to be used to rate pumps sold with continuous control-equipped motors that are either (1) regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or (2) submersible motors. In addition, DOE requested comment on the level of burden associated with reporting the test method used by a manufacturer to certify a given pump basic model as compliant with any energy conservation standards DOE may set.
HI commented that it agrees with these proposals, and that it is not too burdensome to note the test method in the certification report, as proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR. (HI, No. 8 at p. 23) Wilo commented that the calculation-based test methods should be eliminated entirely. Wilo indicated that one problem is that DOE is not responsible for providing tools to determine compliance, so each manufacturer will be responsible for creating its own potentially erroneous evaluation tool. Wilo also indicated that a second problem is that there are no standard efficiencies for VFDs, so a manufacturer could use a minimally performing VFD to create a better performing PEI value for a given pump sold with motor and controls. (Wilo, Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031, No. 44 at pp. 3-4)
In response to Wilo's comment regarding the calculation-based approach, DOE notes that DOE developed the calculation-based approach with extensive feedback and input from the CIP Working Group and believes that it is appropriate for the categories and configurations of pumps for which DOE proposed it would be applicable. DOE also notes that, as described in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, the calculation-based approach is significantly less burdensome than the testing-based approach since a manufacturer may elect to determine the PEI rating for several pump models sold with different combinations of motors and/or continuous controls based on the physical test of the bare pump only. That is, manufacturers may test a representative sample of bare pumps (see section III.G for a description of DOE's sampling provisions for pumps) and all subsequent ratings of that bare pump sold with any combination of motors that are covered by DOE's energy conservation standards, submersible motors, and continuous controls may be calculated using the calculation-based approach with no additional physical testing. Due to the potentially large burden associated with requiring physical testing of each potential combination of a bare pump, motor, and continuous control, as well as the existing concerns of manufacturers and other interested parties regarding the proposed test procedure (see section IV.B), DOE is electing to maintain the calculation-based procedure as an option for applicable pumps.
DOE also notes that the calculation-based procedure is required for bare pumps, as testing-based methods do not apply to bare pumps because a PEI rating (which includes the efficiency of the motor) cannot be determined based on a test of the bare pump alone. For all other pump configurations, the calculation-based method is only offered as an option, should manufacturers choose to employ it. Therefore, if Wilo prefers to use the testing-based approach to certify their equipment, it may do so for all configurations of pumps except bare pumps.
Regarding the accuracy or validity of any evaluation tools to implement any calculations associated with either the calculation-based or testing-based approach, DOE notes that manufacturers must rate pumps in accordance with the test procedure. The calculation-based approach required by the regulations provides sufficient detail for manufacturers to develop reliable tools. Nonetheless, manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that any calculations are performed correctly, whether performed using an evaluation tool or by hand, for both the calculation-based and the testing-based approaches.
In response to Wilo's comment regarding the potential for a manufacturer to improve the PEI rating of a given pump model sold with a motor, but without continuous controls, by pairing the pump with continuous controls, DOE acknowledges that the PEI for pumps sold with continuous controls tested using either the calculation-based or testing-based approach will be better (
In this test procedure final rule, DOE is adopting the test method applicability proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR and shown in Table III.8 with no modifications. As proposed in the NOPR, DOE is also adopting requirements that manufacturers report the test method used to determine the ratings for applicable pump models and provisions that when conducting assessment and enforcement testing DOE will use the same method reported by manufacturers.
The specific test methods, any comments DOE received on the proposed methods and applicability, and the final test methods DOE is adopting in this final rule are discussed in the following sections:
• Section III.E.1.a: The calculation-based approach for bare pumps (method A.1),
• section III.E.1.b: The calculation-based approach for pumps sold with applicable motors,
• section III.E.1.c: The calculation-based approach for pumps sold with applicable motors and continuous controls,
• section III.E.2.b: The testing-based approach for pumps sold with motors, and
• section III.E.2.c: The testing-based approach for pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls.
In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that the following calculation-based test methods would be used to rate (1) pumps sold as bare pumps (method A.1); (2) pumps sold either with (a) motors that are regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or (b) submersible motors (method B.1); and (3) pumps sold with motors that are either (a) regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or (b) submersible motors, and that are equipped with continuous controls
Regardless of the pump configuration or characteristics, the calculation-based test method for the applicable pump types includes the following steps:
(1) Physical testing of the bare pump, in accordance with HI 40.6-2014, to determine the pump BEP and pump shaft input power at 75, 100, and 110 of actual BEP flow, adjusted to nominal speed;
(2) Determining the part load losses of the motor (or default motor) and any continuous or non-continuous controls applicable to the rated pump model at each load point;
(3) Taking the sum of the pump shaft input power at nominal speed and the calculated part load motor losses at each load point in the constant load or variable load profiles, as applicable, to determine the input power to the pump at each load point;
(4) Determining the PER
(5) Determining the PER
(6) Dividing the PER
The specific test methods for bare pumps, pumps sold with motors, and pumps sold with motors and continuous controls are described in more detail in the following sections III.E.1.a, III.E.1.b, and III.E.1.c, respectively.
As described previously, DOE proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR that the bare pump PER
The part load motor losses for the bare pump would be determined for the bare pump based on a default nominal full load motor efficiency, representative of a motor that is minimally compliant with DOE's electric motor energy conservation standards (or the default minimum motor efficiency for submersible motors), as described in section III.D.1, and the default motor loss curve, as described in section III.D.2.
As presented in section III.B, the PEI
For bare pumps, DOE proposed establishing the calculation-based approach (method A.1) as the only applicable test procedure, as testing-based methods do not apply to bare pumps because a PEI rating (which includes the efficiency of the motor) cannot be determined based on a test of the bare pump alone.
DOE received no specific comments on the proposed test procedure for bare pumps and is adopting the calculation-based test procedure, as proposed.
For pumps sold with motors that either are regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or are submersible motors, DOE proposed to allow the use of the applicable calculation-based method (method B.1), in addition to the testing-based method (method B.2, discussed in section III.E.2.b). In these cases, DOE proposed that the calculation-based test procedure would be similar to that for pumps sold alone (method A.1) except that the represented nominal full load motor efficiency, or losses, would be that of the motor with which the pump is sold when determining PER
The PEI
As previously discussed in section III.B.2, in determining PER
In the April 2015 pump test procedure NOPR, DOE requested comment on several specific items related to the proposed calculation-based test procedure for pumps sold with applicable motors. Specifically, DOE requested comment on its proposal to determine the part load losses of motors covered by DOE's electric motor energy conservation standards using the represented nominal full load motor efficiency, as determined in accordance with DOE's electric motor test procedure, and the same default motor part load loss curve used in test method A.1. In response, HI commented that it could not comment on this issue. (HI, No. 8 at p. 21) DOE received no additional comments on this proposal.
DOE requested comment on its proposal that pumps sold with motors that are not addressed by DOE's electric motors test procedure (except submersible motors) would be rated based on the testing-based approach, and HI commented that it agrees with this proposal. (HI, No. 8 at p. 21) DOE received no additional comments on this proposal and has determined that no revisions are necessary.
DOE also requested comment on its proposal to determine the PER
Based on the comments received from interested parties, DOE is adopting the proposed test method B.1 for pumps sold with motors covered by DOE's electric motor test procedure. For pumps sold with submersible motors, the default nominal full load submersible motor efficiency values used in the calculation of PER
For pumps sold with continuous controls and motors that are either (a) regulated by DOE's electric motor standards for electric motors or (b) submersible motors, DOE proposed, in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, to allow use of either the applicable calculation-based method (method C.1, discussed in this section III.E.1.c) or the testing-based method (method C.2, discussed in section III.E.2.c). 80 FR 17618-19. The proposed calculation-based approach for pumps sold with motors and continuous controls determines the PEI
Similar to the calculation-based approaches for bare pumps and pumps sold with motors, the input power to the pump when sold with motors and continuous controls would be determined by adding together the pump shaft input power and the combined losses from the motor and continuous controls at each of the load points. However, in the case of determining PER
DOE's approach for developing the proposed system curve is discussed in detail in the April 2015 pump test procedure NOPR.
To determine the pump shaft input power at 25, 50, and 75 percent of BEP flow, DOE proposed to apply the reference system curve discussed in section III.E.1.c and assume that continuous speed reduction is applied to achieve the reduced load points. Specifically, the reduction in pump shaft input power at part loadings was assumed to be equivalent to the relative reduction in pump hydraulic output power assumed by the system curve, as shown in equation (20):
Finally, to calculate the PER
The development of DOE's part load loss factor equations for motors and continuous controls are also described in detail in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR. 80 FR 17586, 17621 (April 1, 2015).
To determine the resultant PEI
In response to DOE's proposed calculation-based approach for pumps sold with application motors and continuous controls, HI commented that it is in agreement with the calculation-based test method for pumps sold with motors and continuous controls, provided that the corrected version of NOPR equation (6) presented at the April 2015 NOPR public meeting is used. (HI, No. 8 at pp. 21-22) HI also specifically indicated that it agrees with the proposed system curve shape, and that it agrees that the curve should go through the statically loaded offset.
Regal Beloit commented that it accepts the structure of the pump energy conservation standards NOPR and the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR as presented with respect to motor-drive efficiency testing and evaluation, and encouraged the use of the forthcoming industry standard IEC 61800-9-2 once it is published and at such time as the DOE seeks to revise the pumps test procedure. (Regal Beloit, No. 9 at p. 1) DOE understands that the IEC standard will serve as a 60 Hz version of the 50 Hz European industry standard BS EN 50598. DOE will review the IEC standard once it is available, and may consider it for future rulemaking activity.
DOE received no other comments on this test method, and confirms that the final rule uses the corrected equation for determining the minimum standard pump efficiency presented at the April 2015 NOPR public meeting.
In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that each bare pump model be physically tested in accordance with the test procedure and that calculations alone could not be used to determine bare pump performance. DOE noted that the calculation-based test procedure for certain applicable pumps already contains provisions for tested bare pump performance to be combined with default or tested performance data regarding the motor or motor with continuous or non-continuous controls to calculate the PER of multiple pump basic models. Therefore, DOE proposed that, beyond the calculations proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure
DOE requested comment on its proposal to require testing of each individual bare pump as the basis for a certified PEI
Testing-based methods directly measure the input power to the motor, continuous control, or non-continuous control at the load points of interest (
The following sections describe DOE's proposals, any comments received from interested parties, and the final test provisions DOE is adopting in this final rule on the following topics:
• How to determine BEP for pumps rated using the testing-based method (section III.E.2.a),
• the testing-based approach for pumps sold with motors (method B.2; described in section III.E.2.b), and
• the testing-based approach for pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls (method B.3; described in section III.E.2.c).
In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE noted that when testing some pumps using testing-based methods, it is not possible to determine BEP as a ratio of pump input power over pump hydraulic power unless additional measurements are made of bare pump performance or pump shaft input power, in addition to input power to the motor.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to require manufacturers to determine BEP for pumps rated with a testing-based method by using the ratio of input power to the driver or continuous control, if any, over pump hydraulic output. DOE also requested input on the degree to which this method may yield significantly different BEPs from the case in which BEP is determined based on pump efficiency. HI commented that BEP can only be determined when testing the bare pump. HI also indicated that determining BEP through a wire-to-water (
After review, DOE has determined that the HI proposal would yield different efficiency ratings for the same pump. In response to HI's comment, DOE notes that DOE initially proposed that the BEP when applying the testing-based methods would be based on the overall efficiency in order to reduce burden when conducting testing. That is, when testing a pump in accordance with the testing-based method, DOE proposed that the overall efficiency would be used to determine pump efficiency so that the pump shaft input power would not have to be separately determined, since measurements of pump shaft input power are not otherwise needed when conducting the test procedure. If DOE were instead to specify that BEP be determined based on the pump efficiency only, pumps tested using the testing-based approaches would either need to have additional instrumentation installed (
In response to HI's concern regarding the increased burden of determining the BEP based on overall efficiency, DOE finds this statement to be erroneous, since the determination of BEP based on overall efficiency would only be required for the testing-based approaches and the testing-based approaches already require each basic model to be tested. Under the proposed approach, no incremental testing would be necessary. To the extent that manufacturers wish to use the calculation-based methods to determine the PEI of applicable pumps, the BEP of the bare pump, based on pump efficiency, must be used. However, these data are irrelevant to determining the PEI of pumps under the testing-based approach, since the two methods are mutually exclusive. That is, the PEI of a given pump cannot be determined via both calculation-based and testing-based approaches. DOE has ensured that this is clear in the regulatory text included in this final rule.
Regarding HI's proposal to optionally allow manufacturers to use either pump efficiency or overall efficiency, DOE believes that such an approach could potentially result in variability in the BEP, and thus PEI, for the same pump model. This is unacceptable since each pump model can have only one certified PEI value associated with it and that value must be repeatable and consistent among test facilities.
DOE believes that the approach proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR will result in representations that are more straightforward and consistent, as well as less burdensome, for those pumps rated using the testing-based approach. As such, DOE is adopting, in this final rule, the approach proposed in the April 2015 pump test procedure NOPR to
Regarding HI's comment that BEP should be determined as the load point associated with maximum efficiency, which consists of both head and flow points, DOE acknowledges HI's comments and agrees that the BEP for each pump represents the flow and head points representing maximum efficiency at full impeller diameter. In particular, DOE notes that DOE's definition of BEP, as adopted in this final rule, specifies BEP with respect to a load point, consisting of both flow and head conditions. However, in this test procedure final rule, DOE in general refers to BEP flow, since DOE's specified load points are characterized with respect to BEP flow only. DOE understands that the head and flow of a given pump, at full impeller diameter and without throttling, are inextricably linked, so it is not necessary to independently account for and specify both parameters. That is, for example, by specifying the flow at 100 percent of BEP, the power calculated at that load point will, necessarily, also be reflective of head at 100 percent of BEP flow, since the data are all based on the same curve. It is not possible to determine the power input at, for example, 50 percent of BEP flow and 100 percent of BEP head without throttling the pump, trimming the impeller, or otherwise physically altering the tested equipment or test set-up such that the data generated would no longer be reflective of the pump model being tested. As such, DOE does not believe that any additional specifications or clarifications regarding the BEP load point are necessary in the pumps test procedure.
For pumps sold with motors that are not regulated by DOE's electric motor standards (except for submersible motors), DOE proposed that use of the testing-based method B.2, discussed in this section III.E.2.b, would be required because the nominal full load efficiency of the motor, as determined using a specific standardized procedure, is not available for those motors. For pumps sold with motors subject to DOE's electric motor standards or submersible motors, the testing-based approach discussed in this section III.E.2.b would be optional.
In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE also proposed that, for pumps sold with motors, the PEI
DOE received no comments on the proposed testing-based approach for pumps sold with motors and, as such, is adopting the provisions discussed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR with no changes.
For pumps sold with non-continuous control-equipped motors that are either (1) regulated by DOE's electric motor standards for electric motors or (2) submersible motors, as defined in section III.E.1.c, DOE proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR that the calculation-based method C.1 would not be applicable because these controls are not able to follow the reference system curve described in section III.E.1.c. Instead, pumps sold with non-continuous controls would have to be tested using the testing-based method C.2. For pumps sold with motors not regulated by DOE's electric motor standards (excluding submersible motors) that are equipped with either continuous or non-continuous controls, DOE also noted that only these testing-based methods (method C.2) would apply, as is the case for pumps sold with motors not regulated by DOE's electric motor standards (excluding submersible motors) without controls (discussed in section III.E.2.b). 80 FR 17586, 17627 (April 1, 2015).
For pumps sold with continuous controls and motors that are (1) regulated by DOE's electric motor standards for electric motors or (2) submersible motors, the testing-based approach discussed herein (method C.2) would be optional, and such pumps may also be tested under the calculation-based approach, as discussed in section III.E.1.c.
Regarding the specific procedures contained in the testing-based approach for pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, DOE proposed that the PEI
• Is the “driver input power” defined in table 40.6.2.1 of HI 40.6-2014 and referenced in table 40.6.3.2.3, section 40.6.4.4, and section 40.6.6.2,
• refers to the input power to the continuous or non-continuous control, and
• is determined in accordance with the tolerances and requirements for measuring electrical power described in section III.C.2.e.
DOE clarified that, with the proposed approach, pump manufacturers would determine the BEP of the pump, inclusive of motor and continuous or non-continuous controls, as described in section III.E.2.a, and then adjust the operating speed of the motor and the head until the specified head and flow conditions are reached (
Under DOE's proposed approach, the PER would become the mean of the measured power input to the continuous or non-continuous control at the four specified load points based on the assumed system curve (as in method C.1), as shown in equation (24):
In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR proposal, DOE also noted that some pumps are sold with non-continuous controls, such as multi-speed motors, that are not able to follow the reference system curve directly at all load points. For example, in the case of a pump sold with a two-speed motor, the pump will operate at full speed (
For pumps sold with non-continuous controls, DOE proposed to modify this testing-based method C.2 for pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls to specify that the head measurements associated with each of the specified flow points would not have to be achieved within 10 percent of the specified head, as described by the reference system curve—only the flow rate would need to be achieved within 10 percent of the specified value.
DOE requested comment on the proposed testing-based method for pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, as well as the proposed testing-based method for determining the input power to the pump for pumps sold with motors and non-continuous controls. In addition, DOE requested comment on any other type of non-continuous control that may be sold with a pump and for which the proposed test procedure would not apply.
HI commented that it agrees with the optional testing-based methods, but also indicated that any pump sold with an ON/OFF control should be tested or calculated using a PEI
As noted previously, manufacturers of any pumps within the scope of the pump test procedure will be required to use the test procedure established in this rulemaking when making representations about the energy efficiency or energy use of their equipment. Specifically, 42 U.S.C. 6314(d) provides that “[n]o manufacturer . . . may make any representation . . . respecting the energy consumption of such equipment or cost of energy consumed by such equipment, unless such equipment has been tested in accordance with such test procedure and such representation fairly discloses the results of such testing.”
In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE noted that performing the proposed test procedure for pumps requires a key component(C-value) that is being addressed through the parallel standards rulemaking for pumps (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031). 80 FR 17586, 17628 (April 1, 2015). Because of this dependency, DOE clarified that manufacturers of equipment that are addressed by this test procedure and any applicable standards that DOE may set would have 180 days after the promulgation of those standards to begin using the DOE procedure.
With respect to representations, generally, DOE stated its understanding that manufacturers often make representations (graphically or in numerical form) of energy use metrics, including pump efficiency, overall (wire-to-water) efficiency, bowl efficiency, driver power input, pump power input (brake or shaft horsepower), and/or pump power output (hydraulic horsepower) and may
DOE also proposed that any representations of PEI and PER must be made in accordance with the DOE test procedure, and there may only be one PEI or PER representation for each basic model. In other words, representations of PEI and PER that differ from the full impeller PEI and PER cannot be made at alternate speeds, stages, or impeller trims. Additionally, if the PEI and PER for a basic model is rated using any method other than method A.1, “bare pump with default motor efficiency and default motor part load loss curve,” such a basic model may not include individual models with alternate stages or impeller trims.
If a manufacturer wishes to make unique representations of PEI or PER based on a trimmed impeller, the manufacturer must certify the trimmed impeller as a separate basic model. In such a case, the “trimmed impeller” being rated would become the “full impeller” for the new basic model (
In response to DOE's language regarding representations in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, HI stated its concern with the somewhat vague language used around 42 U.S.C. 6314(d) prohibited representation. HI emphasized that it is imperative that pump manufacturers be allowed to continue using pre-existing efficiency curves and sizing software that is used directly by end users and distributors to purchase pumps. HI noted its interpretation that the following text: “Manufacturers often make these representations at multiple impeller trims, operating speeds, and number of stages for a given pump. DOE proposes to allow manufacturers to continue making these representations.” indicates that existing performance and efficiency data can continue to be used and that only representations of PER and PEI fall under [the requirements of] 42 U.S.C. 6314(d) “Prohibited Representation.” HI requested that DOE clearly articulate in the final rule that prohibited representation under 42 U.S.C. 6314(d) applies only to PER and PEI representations. (HI, No. 8 at p. 1)
In response to HI's comment regarding the nature of representations manufacturers are allowed to make regarding the performance of their equipment under 42 U.S.C. 6314(d), DOE reiterates that, beginning 180 days after publication of this final rule in the
In the April 2015 NOPR public meeting, the EEAs noted that it would be helpful if DOE could have its certification materials available prior to the compliance date so that manufacturers can make early representations of PEI. (EEAs, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at pp. 191-192) The EEAs also noted that it would be helpful for all the fields in the certification report to show up in the database, or that they would determine which items the utility programs would need. (EEAs, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at pp. 206-207) DOE discusses compliance certification reporting in the parallel energy conservation standards rulemaking, and has considered the stakeholder comments in that rule.
DOE provides in subpart B to 10 CFR part 429 sampling plans for all covered equipment. The purpose of these sampling plans is to provide uniform statistical methods for determining compliance with prescribed energy conservation standards and for making representations of energy consumption and energy efficiency on labels and in other locations such as marketing materials. In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that, for pumps, the same statistical sampling plans used for other commercial and industrial equipment would be applicable and proposed to add the sampling plan to 10 CFR 429.59. 80 FR 17586, 17628-29 (April 1, 2015).
Under the proposal, DOE proposed that a sample of sufficient size must be randomly selected and tested to ensure compliance and that a minimum of two units must be tested to certify a basic model as compliant. DOE also proposed to apply the same statistical sampling procedures, including the confidence limit and derating factor, that are applicable to many other types of commercial and industrial equipment, as DOE believes equipment variability and measurement repeatability associated with the measurements proposed for rating pumps are similar to the variability and measurement repeatability associated with energy efficiency or consumption measurement required for other commercial equipment.
Finally, DOE proposed that DOE would determine compliance in an enforcement matter based on the arithmetic mean of a sample not to exceed four units.
DOE received no comments on this proposal. However, upon reviewing the April 2015 pump test procedure NOPR proposals, DOE identified several provisions that require clarification to ensure that DOE's certification and enforcement provisions are clear and consistent.
First, in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, the equations for the upper confidence limit (UCL) and lower confidence limit (LCL) in section 429.60 both referenced a confidence limit of 0.95. 80 FR 17586, 17640 (April 1, 2015). However, the UCL and LCL were proposed to be divided by a de-rating factor of 1.01 and 0.99, respectively.
DOE received no comments from interested parties in response to the proposal in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR. However, DOE reevaluated the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR proposal and determined that the resultant values may yield overly conservative results that would effectively require such pumps to meet a more stringent standard than that considered in the associated pumps energy conservation standards rule (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031). Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is correcting the confidence limit and derating factor adopted in this final rule to better reflect the likely variability in test results expected to result from the pumps test procedure, lab-to-lab variability, and manufacturing tolerances. Specifically, for the purpose of regulating pumps, a confidence limit of 0.95 and de-rating factor of 1.05 or 0.95 is required due to the combined impacts of test tolerances, experimental variability in conducting the test procedure, and manufacturing variability for this equipment. That is, given the likely variation of measured PEIs within a sample of pump units of the same model, a confidence limit of 0.95 is necessary to ensure that the statistical requirements in the sampling plan for pumps are consistent with the magnitude of the variance between tested units within a sample resulting from manufacturing tolerances and experimental uncertainty inherent in the test procedure. Therefore, DOE is adopting a confidence limit of 0.95 and de-rating factors of 1.05 and 0.95 as applicable to pumps in this test procedure final rule.
Also, regarding testing pumps for enforcement purposes, DOE is clarifying, in this final rule, the procedure for determining BEP when the “expected BEP” may not be known to DOE. As discussed in section III.C.2.d, the procedure for determining BEP described in section 40.6.5.5.1 of HI 40.6-2014 requires that the flow points are to be 40, 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP of the pump model and that if the BEP rate of flow is displaced by more than 5 percent, the test must be repeated. In the case of enforcement testing, DOE will follow the same procedure as manufacturers in determining the BEP of the pump. In this final rule, DOE is clarifying that DOE will use the volume rate of flow (flow rate) at BEP and nominal speed certified by the manufacturer for that pump model as the expected BEP when performing the BEP test. In the case that the BEP rate of flow is more than 5 percent displaced from the certified value, DOE will also retest the pump as required by the test procedure. However, if the retested BEP rate of flow is still more than 5 percent displaced from the manufacturer's certified value, DOE will use the mean of the tested values as the volume rate of flow (flow rate) at BEP and nominal speed in subsequent calculations when determining the PEI for that model.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test procedure rulemakings do not constitute “significant regulatory actions” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601,
DOE reviewed today's final rule, which establishes new test procedures for pumps, under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. DOE concludes that the final rule DOE is adopting will not result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis set forth in the following sections.
While DOE is currently evaluating whether to establish energy conservation standards for pumps, DOE must first establish a test procedure that measures the energy use, energy efficiency, or estimated operating costs of a given type of covered equipment before establishing any new energy conservation standards for that equipment.
In this test procedure, DOE prescribes test methods for measuring the energy consumption of certain pumps, inclusive of motors and controls (continuous or non-continuous), if they are included with the pump when distributed in commerce. In addition, this final rule establishes a new subpart Y to part 431 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations that contains DOE's new test procedure for pumps, as well as definitions pertinent to establishing the scope of pumps to which the adopted test procedure is applicable. This final rule also contains sampling plans for pumps for the purposes of demonstrating compliance with any energy conservation standards that DOE adopts.
DOE's test procedure contains methods to determine the energy consumption for all equipment for which this test procedure applies using either calculation-based methods and/or testing-based methods. While both methods include some amount of testing and some amount of calculation, the terms “calculation-based” and “testing-based” are used to distinguish between methods in which the input power to the pump is determined either by (a) measuring the bare pump shaft input power
This test procedure final rule also contains requirements regarding (1) the characteristics, categories, and configurations of pumps to which the adopted test procedure is applicable; (2) the specific manner in which pumps must be tested to determine any applicable representations regarding the performance of pumps subject to the test procedure; and (3) the number of pump units that must be tested to determine the representative value for each basic model. As noted in the April 2015 pump test procedure NOPR and further elaborated in section III.F, DOE's new pumps test procedure requires a key component (C-value) that is being addressed through the parallel standards rulemaking for pumps (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031). 80 FR 17586, 17628 (April 1, 2015). As such, the use of this test procedure as the basis for any representations regarding the energy efficiency or energy use of pumps would not be required until 180 days after the publication of any energy conservation standards final rule in the
While DOE maintains that this final rule has no incremental burden associated with it when viewed as a stand-alone rulemaking, DOE recognizes that pump energy conservation standards are currently being considered in an associated rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031) and may be proposed or promulgated in the near future. Therefore, to consider the aggregate impacts of developing certified ratings for applicable pump models for the purposes of making representations regarding the energy use of such equipment or certifying compliance to DOE under any future energy conservation standards, DOE is also estimating the full burden of conducting the testing required by this test procedure final rule for each pump model. Therefore, while such is not required yet, DOE is presenting the results from conducting the regulatory flexibility analysis to develop estimates of the costs associated with testing equipment consistent with the requirements of this test procedure final rule, as would be required to certify compliance with the potential energy conservation standard. DOE presents the results of such analysis in the following sections.
However, DOE is not determining the significance of that burden with respect to manufacturers' financial situation or status as a small entity. As the use of the testing requirements contained in this final rule is contingent upon the energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE is analyzing the effect of the combined burden associated with both the test procedure and energy conservation standard rulemakings in the manufacturer impact analysis performed as part of the energy conservation standard rulemaking (
Within the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE conducted an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA). 80 FR 17586, 17629-33 (April 1, 2015). In response to DOE's April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR estimate of testing burden, DOE received written and verbal comments at the April 2015 NOPR public meeting, as well as throughout the comment period. Comments related to the potential burden include comments related to potential anticompetitive effects of the proposed test procedure; cost of test facility(s); labor costs; quantity of manufacturers potentially affected; and manufacturer sales to assess burden. In this final rule, DOE addresses these comments and presents a revised assessment of potential burden related to test procedure final rule.
Consistent with DOE's requirements to comply with section 32(c) of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977 (15 U.S.C. 788;
In this final rule, DOE reviews the potential burden and expense related to testing, but does not analyze the potential effects on competition. However, DOE notes that it has taken steps, in the test procedure adopted in this final rule to minimize burden on manufacturers related to testing and rating equipment in accordance with such procedures.
In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE estimated the burden to manufacturers associated with performing testing in accordance with the proposed test procedure. 80 FR 17586, 17629-33 (April 1, 2015). DOE estimated that in order to determine the performance of any covered pump models for the purposes of making
(1) Construct and maintain a test facility that is capable of testing pumps in compliance with the test procedure, including acquisition and calibration of any necessary measurement equipment, and
(2) conduct the DOE test procedure on two units of each covered pump model.
Because pumps are newly regulated equipment and there are no existing testing requirements for pumps, the capabilities of existing testing facilities may vary widely from one manufacturer to another. In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE based it's assessment of testing burden on the conservative assumption that pump manufacturers would have no existing testing infrastructure and would have to bear the full cost of constructing a new testing facility generally capable of conducting testing in accordance with the proposed test procedure. DOE estimated the capital cost of constructing the two types of facilities: A facility equipped to perform the calculation-based test methods (described in section, III.E.1), which varied between $91,000 and $277,000, and a facility equipped to perform the testing-based test methods (described in section, III.E.2), which varied between $72,000 and $213,000. DOE amortized these capital costs to determine an annual payment amount over an estimated 7-year loan period because DOE's research indicated this was the typical loan period for pump manufacturers. DOE's final calculations regarding the cost of constructing a test lab assumed that the majority of pump models would be certified based on the bare pump configuration and subsequent ratings for the same bare pump sold with any number of applicable motors and continuous controls could be generated using the calculation-based approach. In addition, DOE estimated the ongoing cost of testing between $161.61 and $430.96 per unit, plus calibration activities of $1,241.67 per year. 80 FR 17586, 17632 (April 1, 2015) Based on these assumptions, DOE estimated the amortized total burden associated with the test procedure ranged between $61,000 and $221,000 annually for small manufacturers affected by this rule.
DOE requested specific comments and feedback on a number of assumptions made in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR regulatory flexibility analysis. Regarding the cost of constructing a test facility capable of performing the test procedure presented in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, HI stated that the estimates of materials and costs to build a pump testing facility as presented are greatly underestimated and would be in excess of $1 million. HI indicated that DOE's facility description leaves out many expensive machines and other equipment that would be required for this testing. (HI, No. 0008 at pp. 24-25)
DOE disagrees with the comments from HI regarding the cost of the testing facility and the effect of burden on manufacturers and the industry. DOE notes that, in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), DOE used the most burdensome assumptions to estimate the burden associated with complying with the test procedure, resulting in estimates lower than the $1 million HI suggested. DOE notes that the estimated costs in the IRFA were based on the construction of a facility capable of conducting the DOE test procedure for pumps within the scope of the rulemaking. Because of a lack of information on existing testing facilities in the industry, as well as the potential variability in the capabilities of these existing facilities, DOE assumed that no manufacturers would have existing test capabilities and all manufacturers would have to construct new test laboratories in order to comply with the test procedure. DOE also assumed in the IRFA that no third party laboratories were available to conduct testing in accordance with the DOE test procedure. 80 FR 17586, 17631 (April 1, 2015).
DOE recognizes that many pump manufacturers already have pump test facilities and conduct pump testing as part of an existing manufacturing quality control process, to develop pump performance information for new and existing products, and to demonstrate the performance of specific pump units for customers. As such, for the purposes of estimating testing burden associated with this test procedure final rule, DOE has revised the baseline assumptions regarding the existing test lab capabilities of manufacturers and has estimated the incremental burden associated with just those test procedure requirements that would not typically exist in current manufacturer facilities. DOE describes these updated assumptions and analysis in section IV.B.3.
Regarding the capabilities of existing test laboratories, HI commented that it disagrees with DOE's assumption in the NOPR that the use of a non-calibrated test motor and VFD with a torque meter would be the most common and least costly approach for testing bare pumps in accordance with the proposed DOE test procedure. (HI, No. 0008 at p. 24) Additionally, HI noted that it did not find anything in the NOPR preamble that mentions recertification requirements. (HI, No. 0008 at p. 25)
DOE acknowledges comments from HI on the underestimated cost estimates to build a pump testing facility and suggestions of components. DOE disagrees with HI that a VFD control would not be the most common approach for testing pumps in accordance with the DOE test procedure. DOE conducted a literature search for pump configurations and determined that almost all controls available to be paired with pumps are VFD controls. DOE also reiterates that the estimates used in the IRFA were not meant to be the least costly for manufacturers. The cost estimates for constructing a test facility were meant to be the most burdensome on manufacturers to show the most costly approach to building a test facility. DOE acknowledges the comment from HI regarding recertification requirements and clarifies that the estimates for recertification requirements in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR IRFA are for pumps which have been redesigned to capture market preferences or other customer requirements. DOE estimates that 10 percent of basic models per manufacturer will be redesigned and tested each year, and the Department has included the costs of testing newly redesigned pumps in this DOE test procedure final rule regulatory flexibility analysis (see section IV.B.3). To further clarify these costs, DOE has removed the terminology used in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR IRFA regarding recertification that was unclear. Instead, in this final rule, DOE uses redesigned and tested to refer to pumps that would require new certifications each year, as their energy performance will have changed as a result of the equipment redesign. DOE notes that only those pump models for which the energy consumption characteristics have changed necessitate a new basic model certification and that pump models whose energy consumption characteristics have not changed do not need to be recertified.
HI agreed that, for most pump models, only physical testing of the underlying bare pump model is required, and subsequent rating for that bare pump sold with a motor or motor and continuous control can be based on calculations only. (HI, No. 0008 at p. 24) HI also stated that all pumps listed within the scope as outlined in the term sheet can be evaluated in accordance with the methodology described in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR if the corrected equation presented by DOE at the April 29, 2015 public meeting is used. (HI, No. 0008 at p. 24) HI stated that it could not comment on the number of pump models per manufacturer that would be required to use the test (wire-to-water) method to certify pump performance based on a lack of data, but stated that 100 percent of pumps would need to be tested to certify because of the new testing requirements and sampling provisions. (HI, No. 0008 at p. 25)
DOE appreciates the comment from HI that only physical testing of the underlying bare pump is required and that subsequent configurations can be based on calculations. DOE agrees with HI that 100 percent of pumps would need to be tested to certify compliance with a proposed PEI standard, if adopted in a standards final rule. This is true for PEI
To calculate the burden associated with testing pumps on aper manufacturer or per model basis, DOE collected information on the number of manufacturers in the pumps industry, and the numbers of models per manufacturer. DOE then focused this analysis on the small entities as part of the regulatory flexibility analysis. To determine which pump manufacturers were small entities, DOE referenced the Small Business Administration (SBA) size threshold for “Pump and Pumping Equipment Manufacturing” (North American Industry Classification System code 333911).
In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE conducted a focused inquiry into small business manufacturers of equipment covered by this rulemaking. DOE identified 68 distinct manufacturers of covered pump products sold in the U.S. DOE then analyzed those 68 to determine which would be considered a small business. After removing entities that are foreign owned or operated, DOE determined that there were 25 small businesses in the analysis. These 25 companies represent 29 percent of pump manufacturers with facilities in the United States. 80 FR 17586, 17629 (April 1, 2015).
In response to DOE's assessment of the number of small manufacturers subject to the pumps test procedure rule, HI commented that the HI organization currently has 106 member companies (pump manufacturers and associate members) and is aware of more entities within the market. HI believes that the identification of 68 distinct pump manufacturers in the U.S. is low. (HI, No. at pp. 23-24)
DOE appreciates the comment from HI that there are more manufacturers in the pump manufacturing industry that are not included in this analysis. DOE notes that although HI might have associate members, if the member does not manufacture a pump, the associate member is not part of the analysis. During its market survey, DOE used available public information to identify potential small manufacturers. DOE's research involved the review of individual company Web sites and marketing research tools (
In summary, DOE agrees with HI that 68 distinct manufacturers is low on an industry-wide basis, but that is because the number was reduced by other criteria before being presented in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR. DOE notes that HI is not disagreeing with DOE's assessment of the quantity of small businesses, but rather the potential size of total pump manufacturers in the U.S. Following the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE has not identified any more (or different) manufacturers that meet the criteria (domestic headquarters, not owned by another entity, meets the SBA threshold of 500 employees or fewer) to be considered a small business. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE maintains the quantity of 25 small businesses for purposes of analyzing the potential burden. Within the 25 small businesses, DOE has, however, identified an additional manufacturer that produces pumps that are within the scope of this rulemaking and have included this manufacturer in this DOE pumps test procedure final rule regulatory flexibility analysis (raising the total from 15 to 16).
In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE used average sales to assist in assessing the potential burden. 80 FR 17586, 17629 (April 1, 2015). HI commented that it has no alternative to offer other than using the
DOE agrees with HI that there is no better alternative to using average sales as the financial indicator for assessing the burden on manufacturers. DOE notes that Table IV.2 in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR displays the results of the initial regulatory flexibility analysis. 80 FR 17586, 17633 (April 1, 2015). The columns indicate the range of number of employees in each row; the number of small businesses within each employee size range; the average number of basic models produced by manufacturers in each employee size range; and the average sales of the manufacturers in each employee size range as determined from available data sources. Using the estimated potential testing burden, number of basic models, and the average annual sales, DOE determined the potential burden as a percentage of sales of each group of small businesses (as defined by ranges of numbers of employees). Because DOE maintains that this final rule has no incremental burden associated with it when viewed as a stand-alone rulemaking, DOE is only presenting the estimates of the costs associated with testing equipment consistent with the requirements of this test procedure final rule, as would be required to certify compliance with potential energy conservation standards. As such, this table of impacts on manufacturers as a result of conducting this test procedure is no longer included in this regulatory flexibility analysis.
HI commented that there will be a significant burden on both small and large entities and believes that this estimated value would vary depending on the size of the pump manufacturer. (HI, No. 0008 at pp. 25-26)
DOE agrees that the estimated burden may vary based on the size of the manufacturers if energy conservation standards are promulgated. DOE only considered the aggregate effects on small manufacturers of developing certified ratings for applicable pump models for the purposes of making representations regarding the energy use of such equipment or certifying compliance to DOE under any future energy conservation standards. The estimated burden of conducting the DOE test procedure presented in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR showed that, as the number of employees increased, so did the number of basic models and average sales. As a result, as the number of employees increased, the average estimated burden, as a percentage of average annual sales, decreased. Based on this analysis, it is likely that the burden may vary based on the size of manufacturer.
DOE cannot confirm HI's comment that there will be a significant burden on large manufacturers because the regulatory flexibility analysis aims to assess whether there is a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. DOE did not assess the impact of the rule on large entities. However, DOE notes that the parallel energy conservation standards rulemaking includes a full manufacturer impact analysis (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031).
In the initial regulatory flexibility analysis portion of the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE estimated the most burdensome costs for manufacturers to conduct the DOE test procedure. In the initial regulatory flexibility analysis DOE recognized that, because testing is not currently required or standardized, testing facilities may vary widely from one pump manufacturer to another. For the purposes of estimating testing burden in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, DOE estimated the burden associated with a situation where a given pump manufacturer did not have existing test facilities at all and would be required to construct such facilities to test equipment in accordance with the test procedure. In light of comments received regarding the burden associated with testing, DOE revised the analysis and gathered additional information to better characterize the expected burden associated with testing basic models in accordance with the DOE test procedure.
DOE is analyzing the effect of the combined burden associated with both the test procedure and energy conservation standards rulemakings in the manufacturer impact analysis performed as part of the energy conservation standards rulemaking (
The DOE test procedure will require pump manufacturers to conduct the calculation-based method or the testing-based method, depending on the type and configuration of the pump(s) being tested. DOE is adopting the less burdensome calculation-based test method as the required test method for bare pumps, and as optional test methods for pumps other than bare pumps. This includes pumps sold with motors that are covered by DOE's electric motor energy conservation standards or submersible motors and pumps sold with either of these two motor styles that are also sold with continuous controls (
Both the calculation-based method and the testing-based method require physical testing of pumps at some level and, as such, utilize a similar basic testing facility. DOE recognizes that all manufacturers, regardless of HI membership, have access to test facilities to be able to produce pump curves that characterize the performance of their equipment. As such, DOE estimated that all manufacturers would be able to conduct the DOE test procedure in an available test facility.
Sixteen of 25 small manufacturers identified in DOE's survey of manufacturers produce pumps that fall within the scope of this rulemaking and would be required to perform testing; the other 9 produce pump types that are not within the scope of pumps for which this test procedure is applicable. Of the 16 manufacturers that produce pumps within the scope of this rulemaking, 8 are members of HI according to their listing on HI's Web site.
As member companies of HI, DOE assumes that manufacturers with pumps within the scope of this test procedure would test pumps in accordance with HI's most current industry testing standards. That is, DOE assumes that manufacturers that are HI members already conduct testing in accordance
Manufacturers who are not members of HI need to purchase electrical measurement equipment with ±2.0 percent accuracy to conduct the testing-based method of the DOE test procedure. DOE determined that the average cost of such equipment is approximately $5,218.42 based on a review of available products on the market. Unlike the manufacturers who are HI members, the non-HI manufacturers may not perform regular equipment calibration and, as such, will incur an additional cost to calibrate the instruments in the test facility. DOE assumed that each testing facility would need to calibrate the instrumentation used in the test loop as specified in HI 40.6-2014 appendix D. The flowmeter, torque sensor, and power quality meter all should be calibrated once a year. The pressure transducer should be calibrated every 4 months and a laser tachometer should be calibrated every 3 years. These calibrations, together, cost a manufacturer about $1,241.67 per year.
DOE analyzed the estimated burden for 7 years for the 16 small manufacturers that produce pumps within the scope of the DOE test procedure. DOE used an analysis period of 7 years based on the assumption that the machinery qualifies for a 7-year depreciation schedule under the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS).
Both methods of the test procedure require test personnel to set up, conduct, and remove each pump in accordance with that procedure. DOE estimated the cost of labor using the median hourly wage of $41.44 for the overall category of an engineer.
Based on conversations with test engineers, DOE estimates it would take between 1 and 2 hours of an engineer's time to complete the test procedure per unit tested, which would result in a cost of $53.87 to $107.74 per unit based on an engineer's labor rate of $53.87 per hour. DOE estimates that setting up and removing the pumps from the test stand would require 2 to 6 hours of the engineer's time depending on the size of the pump and any other fittings that need to be configured to enable testing, resulting in a cost between $107.74 to $323.22 per unit based on the labor rate of $53.87 per hour for an engineer. The total cost of testing a pump, including setup, tests, and takedown ranges between $161.61 and $430.96 per unit. DOE estimates that the time required to conduct the calculation-based method of test would be the same as the time required to conduct the test-based method (wire-to-water test).
DOE also estimates that pump manufacturers would redesign covered pump models or introduce new pump models each year. As such, DOE estimates that a certain portion of the pump models that a given pump manufacturer offers for sale would need to be tested each year. DOE estimates that approximately 10 percent of manufacturers' unique pump models would need to be tested each year.
DOE amortized the capital costs against the recurring burden of testing pumps described in this analysis for each small manufacturer identified to produce pumps covered under the scope of the DOE test procedure. DOE notes that the labor component represents the majority of the overall cost associated with testing, while the much more variable capital costs are only 23 percent of the total test cost. The representative amortized burden for testing each unit of a basic model is $561.16. As discussed in the sampling provisions in section III.G, this test procedure will require manufacturers to test at least two units of each pump basic model to develop a certified rating. This results in an average cost of $1,122.32 to test two units of each basic model.
While analyzing the potential burdens of testing pumps in-house, DOE recognized that the price per basic model was higher for some manufacturers than for others. For manufacturers with higher costs of testing per basic model may elect to send their pumps to a third-party test facility to mitigate these costs. DOE anticipates that third party testing facilities will update their test facilities to be able to provide testing for pump manufacturers in accordance with the DOE test procedure. Based on market research and discussions with third party test lab personnel, DOE estimates that testing pumps in a third party test facility according to the DOE test procedure will cost approximately $2,500 per unit.
Wilo indicated that one problem is that DOE is not responsible for providing tools to determine compliance, so each manufacturer would be responsible for creating its own potentially erroneous evaluation tool. (Wilo, No. 0044 at p. 3-4) HI requested that DOE share the latest version of the PEI calculator with the pump industry as an easy means of determining whether their products fall within or outside the scope of the efficiency levels specified in the rulemaking. (HI, No. 0002 at p. 1) HI also requested that DOE provide a PEI calculator so that all calculations for PEI are performed exactly the same way by all members of the pump industry, government agencies and interested parties. (HI, No. 0007 at p. 2) HI commented that the calculator could be used to report data to interested utilities. (HI, No. 0007 at p. 10) HI also commented that the complexity of the rating systems will cause a significant burden on all manufacturers to develop
In response to the comments submitted by Wilo and HI, DOE made the PEI calculator available on the pumps test procedure rulemaking Web site.
Based on the estimates presented, DOE believes that the test procedure amendments will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and the preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. DOE will transmit the certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
All collections of information from the public by a Federal agency must receive prior approval from OMB. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for covered consumer products and industrial equipment. 10 CFR part 429, subpart B. DOE published a NOPR proposing energy conservation standards for pumps on April 24, 2015. 80 FR 22938. In an application to renew the OMB information collection approval for DOE's certification and recordkeeping requirements, DOE included an estimated burden for manufacturers of pumps in case DOE ultimately sets energy conservation standards for this equipment. OMB has approved the revised information collection for DOE's certification and recordkeeping requirements. 80 FR 5099 (January 30, 2015). In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE estimated that it will take each respondent approximately 30 hours total per company per year to comply with the certification and recordkeeping requirements based on 20 hours of technician/technical work and 10 hours clerical work to actually submit the Compliance and Certification Management System templates. 80 FR 17586, 17633 (April 15, 2015).
In response to DOE's April 2015 pump test procedure NOPR, HI commented that the hours shown are low and will vary by the number of basic models covered. (HI, No. at p. 26)
DOE appreciates the comment submitted by HI regarding the burden estimate to comply with the proposed recordkeeping requirements. DOE recognizes that recordkeeping burden may vary substantially based on company preferences and practices as well as the number of basic models each manufacturer will test. However, DOE maintains that, on average, it will take manufacturers approximately 30 hours to comply with the certification and recordkeeping requirements. In addition, DOE notes that, while this test procedure rulemaking includes recordkeeping requirements that are associated with executing and maintaining the test data for this equipment, the certification requirements would be established in a final rule establishing energy conservation standards for pumps.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
In this final rule, DOE amends its test procedure for pumps. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final rule and determined that it will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation will not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on competition.
The final rule incorporates by reference the testing methods contained in HI 40.6-2014, “Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing,” except section 40.6.5.3, “Test report;” section A.7, “Testing at temperatures exceeding 30 °C (86 14;°F);” and appendix B, “Reporting of test results.” In addition, the final rule's definitions incorporate by reference the following standards:
(1) Sections 1.1, “types and nomenclature,” and 1.2.9, “rotodynamic pump icons,” of the 2014 version of ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014, “American National Standard for Rotodynamic Centrifugal Pumps for Nomenclature and Definitions;”
(2) section 2.1, “types and nomenclature,” of the 2014 version of ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2, “American National Standard for Rotodynamic Vertical Pumps of Radial, Mixed, and Axial Flow Types for Nomenclature and Definitions.”
(3) FM Class Number 1319, “Approval Standard for Centrifugal Fire Pumps
(4) NFPA 20-2016, “Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection,” approved 2016.
(5) ANSI/UL 448-2013, “Standard for Safety Centrifugal Stationary Pumps for Fire-Protection Service,” approved 2013.
While this test procedure is not exclusively based on these industry testing standards, some components of the DOE test procedure adopt definitions, test parameters, measurement techniques, and additional calculations from them without amendment. The Department has evaluated these industry testing standards and is unable to conclude whether they would fully comply with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA, (
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
In this final rule, DOE is incorporating by reference specific sections from a method of test published by HI, titled “Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing.” Specifically, the test procedure codified by this final rule references HI 40.6-2014, except section 40.6.5.3, “Test report;” section A.7, “Testing at temperatures exceeding 30 °C (86 °F);” and appendix B, “Reporting of test results.” HI 40.6-2014 is an industry-accepted standard used to specify methods of testing for determining the head, flow rate, pump power input, driver power input, pump power output, and other relevant parameters necessary to determine the PEI
In addition, the final rule's definitions incorporate by reference the following sections of the following standards:
(1) Sections 1.1, “types and nomenclature,” and 1.2.9, “rotodynamic pump icons,” of the 2014 version of ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014, “American National Standard for Rotodynamic Centrifugal Pumps for Nomenclature and Definitions;” and
(2) section 2.1, “types and nomenclature,” of the 2014 version of ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2, “American National Standard for Rotodynamic Vertical Pumps of Radial, Mixed, and Axial Flow Types for Nomenclature and Definitions.”
(3) FM Class Number 1319, “Approval Standard for Centrifugal Fire Pumps (Horizontal, End Suction Type),” approved January 2015.
(4) NFPA 20-2016, “Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection,” approved 2015.
(5) ANSI/UL 448-2013, “Standard for Safety Centrifugal Stationary Pumps for Fire-Protection Service,” ANSI approved 2013.
ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 and ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 describe and define specific pump characteristics relevant to the differentiation of pump categories and configurations when applying the DOE test procedure. The FM, NFPA, and ANSI/UL standards describe the relevant technical characteristics and testing requirements to certify certain pumps as fire pumps.
Copies of all HI standards may be purchased from the Hydraulic Institute at 6 Campus Drive, First Floor North, Parsippany, NJ, 07054-4406, or by going to
Copies of FM Class Number 1319 can be obtained from: FM Global, 1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike, P.O. Box 9102, Norwood, MA 02062, (781) 762-4300.
Copies of NFPA 20-2016 can be obtained from: the National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169, (617) 770-3000.
Copies of ANSI/UL 448-2013 can be obtained from: UL, 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062, (847) 272-8800.
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 431 of Chapter II, subchapter D of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
(a) The definitions found in §§ 430.2, 431.2, 431.62, 431.72, 431.82, 431.92, 431.102, 431.132, 431.152, 431.172, 431.192, 431.202, 431.222, 431.242, 431.262, 431.282, 431.292, 431.302, 431.322, 431.442 and 431.462 of this chapter apply for purposes of this part.
(a)
(1) Units to be tested. The requirements of § 429.11 are applicable to pumps; and for each basic model, a sample of sufficient size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that—
(i) Any value of the constant or variable load pump energy index or other measure of energy consumption must be greater than or equal to the higher of:
(A) The mean of the sample, where:
and
Or,
(B) The upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 1.05, where:
and
and
(ii) Any measure of energy efficiency of a basic model must be less than or equal to the lower of:
(A) The mean of the sample, where:
and
Or,
(B) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 0.95, where:
and
(b) [Reserved]
(d) When considering if a pump is subject to energy conservation standards under part 431 of this chapter, DOE may need to determine if a pump was designed and constructed to the requirements set forth in Military Specifications: MIL-P-17639F, MIL-P-17881D, MIL-P-17840C, MIL-P-18682D, or MIL-P-18472G. In this case, a manufacturer must provide DOE with copies of the original design and test data that were submitted to appropriate design review agencies, as required by MIL-P-17639F, MIL-P-17881D, MIL-P-17840C, MIL-P-18682D, or MIL-P-18472G. Military specifications and standards are available for review at
The addition reads as follows:
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) For pumps, DOE will use an initial sample size of not more than four units and will determine compliance based on the arithmetic mean of the sample.
(h)
(i) If the representative value of volume rate of flow (flow rate) at BEP and nominal speed of rotation is found to be valid, the measured volume rate of flow (flow rate) at BEP and nominal speed of rotation will be used in subsequent calculations of constant load pump energy rating (PER
(ii) If the representative value of volume rate of flow (flow rate) at BEP and nominal speed of rotation is found to be invalid, the mean of all the measured volume rate of flow (flow rate) at BEP and nominal speed of rotation values determined from the tested unit(s) will serve as the new expected BEP flow rate and the unit(s) will be retested until such time as the measured volume rate of flow (flow rate) at BEP and nominal speed of rotation is within 5 percent of the expected BEP flow rate.
(2) DOE will test each pump unit according to the test method specified by the manufacturer in the certification report submitted pursuant to § 429.59(b).
42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
This subpart contains definitions, test procedures, and energy conservation requirements for pumps, pursuant to Part A-1 of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6311-6317.
The following definitions are applicable to this subpart, including appendix A. In cases where there is a conflict, the language of the definitions adopted in this section takes precedence over any descriptions or definitions found in the 2014 version of ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2, “American National Standard for Rotodynamic Centrifugal Pumps for Nomenclature and Definitions” (ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014) (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463), or the 2014 version of ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2, “American National Standard for Rotodynamic Vertical Pumps of Radial, Mixed, and Axial Flow Types for Nomenclature and Definitions” (ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014) (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463). In cases where definitions reference design intent, DOE will consider marketing materials, labels and certifications, and equipment design to determine design intent.
(1) For RSV and ST pumps, all variations in numbers of stages of the bare pump must be considered a single basic model;
(2) Pump models for which the bare pump differs in impeller diameter, or impeller trim, may be considered a single basic model; and
(3) Pump models for which the bare pump differs in number of stages or impeller diameter and which are sold with motors (or motors and controls) of varying horsepower may only be considered a single basic model if:
(i) for ESCC, ESFM, IL, and RSV pumps, each motor offered in the basic model has a nominal full load motor efficiency rated at the Federal minimum (
(ii) for ST pumps, each motor offered in the basic model has a full load motor efficiency at the default nominal full load submersible motor efficiency shown in Table 2 of appendix A to subpart Y of part 431 or the same number of bands above the default nominal full load submersible motor efficiency for each respective motor horsepower (
(1) UL listed under ANSI/UL 448-2013 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463), “Standard for Safety Centrifugal Stationary Pumps for Fire-Protection Service,” or
(2) FM Global (FM) approved under the January 2015 edition of FM Class Number 1319, “Approval Standard for Centrifugal Fire Pumps (Horizontal, End Suction Type),” (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463).
(1) Is designed to lift liquid that originates below the centerline of the pump inlet;
(2) Requires no manual intervention to prime or re-prime from a dry-start condition; and
(3) Includes a device, such as a vacuum pump or air compressor and venturi eductor, to remove air from the suction line in order to automatically perform the prime or re-prime function at any point during the pump's operating cycle.
(1) That has a shaft input power greater than or equal to 1 hp and less than or equal to 200 hp at BEP and full impeller diameter and at the number of stages required for testing and
(2) In which liquid is discharged in a place perpendicular to the impeller shaft; and
(3) For which each stage (or bowl) consists of an impeller and diffuser;
(4) For which no external part of such a pump is designed to be submerged in the pumped liquid; and
(5) Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature VS8, as described in ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014.
(1) Is designed to lift liquid that originates below the centerline of the pump inlet;
(2) Contains at least one internal recirculation passage; and
(3) Requires a manual filling of the pump casing prior to initial start-up, but is able to re-prime after the initial start-up without the use of external vacuum sources, manual filling, or a foot valve.
(1) Contains an impeller, impeller shaft (or motor shaft in the case of close-coupled pumps), shaft seal or packing, driver (if present), and mechanical equipment (if present);
(2) Has a shaft input power that is greater than or equal to 1 hp and less than or equal to 200 hp at best efficiency point (BEP) and full impeller diameter;
(3) Has the same primary energy source (if sold with a driver) and the same electrical, physical, and functional characteristics that affect energy consumption or energy efficiency;
(4) Is mounted in its own volute; and
(5) Discharges liquid through its volute and the common discharge in a plane perpendicular to the impeller shaft.
(a)
(b)
(1) FM Class Number 1319, “Approval Standard for Centrifugal Fire Pumps (Horizontal, End Suction Type),” January 2015, IBR approved for § 431.462.
(2) [Reserved]
(c)
(1) ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014, (“ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014”), “American National Standard for Rotodynamic Centrifugal Pumps for Nomenclature and Definitions,” approved October 30, 2014, section 1.1, “Types and
(2) ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014, (“ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014”), “American National Standard for Rotodynamic Vertical Pumps of Radial, Mixed, and Axial Flow Types for Nomenclature and Definitions,” approved April 8, 2014, section 2.1, “Types and nomenclature,” IBR approved for § 431.462.
(3) HI 40.6-2014, (“HI 40.6-2014”), “Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing,” (except section 40.6.5.3, “Test report;” Appendix A, section A.7, “Testing at temperatures exceeding 30 °C (86 °F);” and Appendix B, “Reporting of test results (normative);”) copyright 2014, IBR approved for appendix A to subpart Y of part 431.
(d)
(1) NFPA 20, (“NFPA 20-2016”), “Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection,” 2016 Edition, approved June 15, 2015, IBR approved for § 431.462.
(2) [Reserved]
(e)
(1) UL 448, (“ANSI/UL 448-2013”), “Standard for Safety Centrifugal Stationary Pumps for Fire-Protection Service,” 10th Edition, June 8, 2007, including revisions through July 12, 2013, IBR approved for § 431.462.
(2) [Reserved]
(a)
(1) The following categories of clean water pumps:
(i) End suction close-coupled (ESCC);
(ii) End suction frame mounted/own bearings (ESFM);
(iii) In-line (IL);
(iv) Radially split, multi-stage, vertical, in-line casing diffuser (RSV); and
(v) Submersible turbine (ST) pumps
(2) With the following characteristics:
(i) Flow rate of 25 gpm or greater at BEP and full impeller diameter;
(ii) Maximum head of 459 feet at BEP and full impeller diameter and the number of stages required for testing (see section 1.2.2 of appendix A of this subpart);
(iii) Design temperature range from 14 to 248 °F;
(iv) Designed to operate with either: (
(v) For ST pumps, a 6-inch or smaller bowl diameter; and
(vi) For ESCC and ESFM pumps, a specific speed less than or equal to 5000 when calculated using U.S. customary units.
(3) Except for the following pumps:
(i) Fire pumps;
(ii) Self-priming pumps;
(iii) Prime-assist pumps;
(iv) Magnet driven pumps;
(v) Pumps designed to be used in a nuclear facility subject to 10 CFR part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities;” and
(vi) Pumps meeting the design and construction requirements set forth in Military Specifications: MIL-P-17639F, “Pumps, Centrifugal, Miscellaneous Service, Naval Shipboard Use” (as amended); MIL-P-17881D, “Pumps, Centrifugal, Boiler Feed, (Multi-Stage)” (as amended); MIL-P-17840C, “Pumps, Centrifugal, Close-Coupled, Navy Standard (For Surface Ship Application)” (as amended); MIL-P-18682D, “Pump, Centrifugal, Main Condenser Circulating, Naval Shipboard” (as amended); and MIL-P-18472G, “Pumps, Centrifugal, Condensate, Feed Booster, Waste Heat Boiler, And Distilling Plant” (as amended). Military specifications and standards are available for review at
(b)
Starting on July 25, 2016, any representations made with respect to the energy use or efficiency of pumps subject to testing pursuant to 10 CFR 431.464 must be made in accordance with the results of testing pursuant to this appendix.
A.
A.1 Scope. Section II of this appendix is applicable to all pumps and describes how to calculate the pump energy index (section II.A) based on the pump energy rating for the minimally compliant reference pump (PER
A.2 Section III of this appendix addresses the test procedure applicable to bare pumps. This test procedure also applies to pumps sold with drivers other than motors and pumps sold with single-phase induction motors.
A.3 Section IV of this appendix addresses the testing-based approach for pumps sold with motors, which is applicable to all pumps sold with electric motors, including single-phase induction motors. This test procedure also applies to pumps sold with controls other than continuous or non-continuous controls (
A.4 Section V of this appendix addresses the calculation-based approach for pumps sold with motors, which applies to:
(1) Pumps sold with polyphase electric motors regulated by DOE's energy conservation standards for electric motors at § 431.25(g), and
(2) Pumps sold with submersible motors.
A.5 Section VI of this appendix addresses the testing-based approach for pumps sold with motors and controls, which is applicable to all pumps sold with electric motors (including single-phase induction motors) and continuous or non-continuous controls.
A.6 Section VII of this appendix discusses the calculation-based approach for pumps sold with motors and controls, which applies to:
(1) Pumps sold with polyphase electric motors regulated by DOE's energy conservation standards for electric motors at § 431.25(g) and continuous controls and
(2) Pumps sold with submersible motors and continuous controls.
B.
C.
C.1 Nominal Speed of Rotation. Determine the nominal speed of rotation based on the range of speeds of rotation at which the pump is designed to operate, in accordance with sections I.C.1.1, I.C.1.2, I.C.1.3, I.C.1.4, or I.C.1.5 of this appendix, as applicable. When determining the range of speeds at which the pump is designed to operate, DOE will refer to published data, marketing literature, and other publically-available information about the pump model and motor, as applicable.
C.1.1 For pumps sold without motors, select the nominal speed of rotation based on the speed for which the pump is designed. For bare pumps designed for speeds of rotation including 2,880 to 4,320 revolutions per minute (rpm), the nominal speed of rotation shall be 3,600 rpm. For bare pumps designed for speeds of rotation including 1,440 to 2,160 rpm, the nominal speed of rotation shall be 1,800 rpm.
C.1.2 For pumps sold with 4-pole induction motors, the nominal speed of rotation shall be 1,800 rpm.
C.1.3 For pumps sold with 2-pole induction motors, the nominal speed of rotation shall be 3,600 rpm.
C.1.4 For pumps sold with non-induction motors where the operating range of the pump and motor includes speeds of rotation between 2,880 and 4,320 rpm, the nominal speed of rotation shall be 3,600 rpm.
C.1.5 For pumps sold with non-induction motors where the operating range of the pump and motor includes speeds of rotation between 1,440 and 2,160 rpm, the nominal speed of rotation shall be 1,800 rpm.
C.2 Multi-stage Pumps. For RSV and ST pumps, perform testing on the pump with three stages for RSV pumps and nine stages for ST pumps. If the basic model of pump being tested is only available with fewer than the required number of stages, test the pump with the maximum number of stages with which the basic model is distributed in commerce in the United States. If the basic model of pump being tested is only available with greater than the required number of stages, test the pump with the lowest number
C.3 Twin Head Pumps. For twin head pumps, perform testing on an equivalent single impeller IL pump, constructed by incorporating one of the driver and impeller assemblies of the twin head pump being rated into an adequate, IL style, single impeller volute and casing. An adequate, IL style, single impeller volute and casing means a volute and casing for which any physical and functional characteristics that affect energy consumption and energy efficiency are the same to their corresponding characteristics for a single impeller in the twin head pump volute and casing.
D.1 Damping Devices. Use of damping devices, as described in section 40.6.3.2.2 of HI 40.6−2014 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463), are only permitted to integrate up to the data collection interval used during testing.
D.2 Stabilization. Record data at any tested load point only under stabilized conditions, as defined in HI 40.6-2014 section 40.6.5.5.1 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463), where a minimum of two measurements are used to determine stabilization.
D.3 Calculations and Rounding. Normalize all measured data to the nominal speed of rotation of 3,600 or 1,800 rpm based on the nominal speed of rotation selected for the pump in section I.C.1 of this appendix, in accordance with the procedures specified in section 40.6.6.1.1 of HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463). Except for the “expected BEP flow rate,” all terms and quantities refer to values determined in accordance with the procedures set forth in this appendix for the rated pump. Perform all calculations using raw measured values without rounding. Round PER
D.4 Pumps with BEP at Run Out.
Test pumps for which the expected BEP corresponds to a volume rate of flow that is within 20 percent of the expected maximum flow rate at which the pump is designed to operate continuously or safely (
(1) Use the following seven flow points for determination of BEP in sections III.D, IV.D, V.D, VI.D, and VII.D of this appendix instead of those specified in those sections: 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 percent of the expected.
(2) Use flow points of 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 percent of the expected maximum flow rate of the pump to determine pump power input or driver power input at the specified load points in section III.E.1.1, IV.E.1, V.E.1.1, VI.E.1, and VII.E.1.1 of this appendix instead of those specified in those sections.
(3) To determine of PER
A. Determine the PEI of each tested pump based on the configuration in which it is sold, as follows:
A.1. For pumps rated as bare pumps or pumps sold with motors, determine the PEI
A.2 For pumps rated as pumps sold with motors and continuous controls or non-continuous controls, determine the PEI
B. Determine the pump energy rating for the minimally compliant reference pump (PER
B.1. Determine the driver power input at each load point corresponding to 75, 100, or 110 percent of the BEP flow rate as follows:
B.1.1. Determine the pump power input to the minimally compliant pump at each load point corresponding to 75, 100, or 110 percent of the BEP flow rate as follows:
B.1.1.1 Calculate the minimally compliant pump efficiency based on the following equation:
B.1.1.1.1 Determine the specific speed of the rated pump using the following equation:
B.1.1.2 Determine the pump power output at each load point corresponding to 75, 100, or 110 percent of the BEP flow rate using the following equation:
B.1.2 Determine the motor part load losses at each load point corresponding to 75, 100, or 110 percent of the BEP flow rate as follows:
B.1.2.1 Determine the full load motor losses using the appropriate motor efficiency value and horsepower as shown in the following equation:
B.1.2.1.1 Determine the motor horsepower as follows:
• For bare pumps other than ST pumps, the motor horsepower is determined as the horsepower rating listed in Table 2 of this appendix that is either equivalent to, or the next highest horsepower greater than, the pump power input to the bare pump at 120 percent of the BEP flow rate of the tested pump.
• For ST bare pumps, the motor horsepower is determined as the horsepower rating listed in Table 2 of this appendix that, is either equivalent to, or the next highest horsepower greater than, the pump power input to the bare pump at 120 percent of the BEP flow rate of the tested pump divided by a service factor of 1.15.
• For pumps sold with motors, pumps sold with motors and continuous controls, or pumps sold with motors and non-continuous controls, the motor horsepower is the rated horsepower of the motor with which the pump is being tested.
B.1.2.1.2 Determine the default nominal full load motor efficiency as described in section II.B.1.2.1.2.1 of this appendix for pumps other than ST pumps or II.B.1.2.1.2.2 of this appendix for ST pumps.
B.1.2.1.2.1. For pumps other than ST pumps, the default nominal full load motor efficiency is the minimum of the nominal full load motor efficiency standards (open or enclosed) from the table containing the current energy conservation standards for NEMA Design B motors at § 431.25, with the number of poles relevant to the speed at which the pump is being tested (see section I.C.1 of this appendix) and the motor horsepower determined in section II.B.1.2.1.1 of this appendix.
B.1.2.1.2.2. For ST pumps, the default nominal full load motor efficiency is the default nominal full load submersible motor efficiency listed in Table 2 of this appendix, with the number of poles relevant to the speed at which the pump is being tested (see section I.C.1 of this appendix) and the motor horsepower determined in section II.B.1.2.1.1 of this appendix.
B.1.2.2 Determine the part load loss factor at each load point corresponding to 75, 100, or 110 percent of the BEP flow rate as follows:
A.
(1) Bare pumps,
(2) Pumps sold with drivers other than electric motors, and
(3) Pumps sold with single-phase induction motors.
B.
(1) Electrical measurement equipment must be capable of measuring true RMS current, true RMS voltage, and real power up to the 40th harmonic of fundamental supply source frequency, and
(2) Any instruments used to measure a particular parameter specified in paragraph (1) must have a combined accuracy of ±2.0 percent of the measured value at the fundamental supply source frequency, where combined accuracy is the root sum of squares of individual instrument accuracies.
C.
(1) Maintain the voltage within ±5 percent of the rated value of the motor,
(2) Maintain the frequency within ±1 percent of the rated value of the motor,
(3) Maintain the voltage unbalance of the power supply within ±3 percent of the rated values of the motor, and
(2) Maintain total harmonic distortion below 12 percent throughout the test.
D.
D.1. Adjust the flow by throttling the pump without changing the speed of rotation of the pump and conduct the test at a minimum of the following seven flow points: 40, 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate of the pump at the nominal speed of rotation, as specified in HI 40.6-2014, except section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463).
D.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as the flow rate at the operating point of maximum pump efficiency on the pump efficiency curve, as determined in accordance with section 40.6.6.3 of HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463), where the pump efficiency is the ratio of the pump power output divided by the pump power input, as specified in Table 40.6.2.1 of HI 40.6-2014, disregarding the calculations provided in section 40.6.6.2.
E.
E.1 Determine the driver power input at each load point corresponding to 75, 100, or 110 percent of the BEP flow rate as follows:
E.1.1 Determine the pump power input at 75, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the BEP flow rate by employing a least squares regression to determine a linear relationship between the pump power input at the nominal speed of rotation of the pump and the measured flow rate at the following load points: 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate. Use the linear relationship to determine the pump power input at the nominal speed of rotation for the load points of 75, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the BEP flow rate.
E.1.2 Determine the motor part load losses at each load point corresponding to 75, 100, or 110 percent of the BEP flow rate as follows:
E.1.2.1 Determine the full load motor losses using the appropriate motor efficiency value and horsepower as shown in the following equation:
E.1.2.1.1 Determine the motor horsepower as follows:
• For bare pumps other than ST pumps, determine the motor horsepower by selecting the horsepower rating listed in Table 2 of this appendix that is either equivalent to, or the next highest horsepower greater than, the pump power input to the bare pump at 120 percent of the BEP flow rate of the tested pump.
• For ST bare pumps, determine the motor horsepower by selecting the horsepower rating listed in Table 2 of this appendix that, is either equivalent to, or the next highest horsepower greater than, the pump power input to the bare pump at 120 percent of the BEP flow rate of the tested pump divided by a service factor of 1.15.
• For pumps sold with motors, pumps sold with motors and continuous controls, or
E.1.2.1.2 Determine the default nominal full load motor efficiency as described in section III.E.1.2.1.2.1 of this appendix for pumps other than ST pumps or III.E.1.2.1.2.2. of this appendix for ST pumps.
E.1.2.1.2.1. For pumps other than ST pumps, the default nominal full load motor efficiency is the minimum of the nominal full load motor efficiency standards (open or enclosed) from the table containing the current energy conservation standards for NEMA Design B motors at § 431.25, with the number of poles relevant to the speed at which the pump is being tested (see section I.C.1 of this appendix) and the motor horsepower determined in section III.E.1.2.1.1 of this appendix.
E.1.2.1.2.2. For ST pumps, the default nominal full load motor efficiency is the default nominal full load submersible motor efficiency listed in Table 2 of this appendix, with the number of poles relevant to the speed at which the pump is being tested (see section I.C.1 of this appendix) and the motor horsepower determined in section III.E.1.2.1.1 of this appendix;
E.1.2.2 Determine the loss factor at each load point corresponding to 75, 100, or 110 percent of the BEP flow rate as follows:
A.
B.
(1) Be capable of measuring true RMS current, true RMS voltage, and real power up to the 40th harmonic of fundamental supply source frequency, and
(2) For all instruments used to measure a given parameter, have a combined accuracy of ±2.0 percent of the measured value at the fundamental supply source frequency, where combined accuracy is the root sum of squares of individual instrument accuracies.
C.
(1) Maintain the voltage within ±5 percent of the rated value of the motor,
(2) Maintain the frequency within ±1 percent of the rated value of the motor,
(3) Maintain the voltage unbalance of the power supply within ±3 percent of the rated values of the motor, and
(4) Maintain total harmonic distortion below 12 percent throughout the test.
D.
D.1 Adjust the flow by throttling the pump without changing the speed of rotation of the pump to a minimum of seven flow points: 40, 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate of the pump at the nominal speed of rotation, as specified in HI 40.6-2014, except section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463).
D.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as the flow rate at the operating point of maximum overall efficiency on the pump efficiency curve, as determined in accordance with section 40.6.6.3 of HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463), where the overall efficiency is the ratio of the pump power output divided by the driver power input, as specified in Table 40.6.2.1 of HI 40.6-2014, disregarding the calculations provided in section 40.6.6.2.
E.
E.1 Determine the driver power input at 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP flow rate by employing a least squares regression to determine a linear relationship between the driver power input at the nominal speed of rotation of the pump and the measured flow rate at the following load points: 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate. Use the linear relationship to determine the driver power input at the nominal speed of rotation for the load points of 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP flow rate.
A.
A.1 Pumps sold with motors subject to DOE's energy conservation standards for polyphase electric motors at § 431.25(g), and
A.2. Pumps sold with submersible motors.
A.3. Pumps sold with motors not listed in sections V.A.1 or V.A.2 of this appendix cannot use this section V and must apply the test method in section IV of this appendix.
B.
(1) Be capable of measuring true RMS current, true RMS voltage, and real power up
(2) For all instruments used to measure a given parameter, have a combined accuracy of ±2.0 percent of the measured value at the fundamental supply source frequency, where combined accuracy is the root sum of squares of individual instrument accuracies.
C.
(1) Maintain the voltage within ±5 percent of the rated value of the motor,
(2) Maintain the frequency within ±1 percent of the rated value of the motor,
(3) Maintain the voltage unbalance of the power supply within ±3 percent of the rated values of the motor, and
(4) Maintain total harmonic distortion below 12 percent throughout the test.
D.
D.1 Adjust the flow by throttling the pump without changing the speed of rotation of the pump to a minimum of seven flow points: 40, 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate of the pump at the nominal speed of rotation, as specified in HI 40.6-2014, except section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463).
D.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as the flow rate at the operating point of maximum pump efficiency on the pump efficiency curve, as determined in accordance with section 40.6.6.3 of HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463), where pump efficiency is the ratio of the pump power output divided by the pump power input, as specified in Table 40.6.2.1 of HI 40.6-2014 and the calculations provided in section 40.6.6.2 are to be disregarded.
E.
E.1 Determine the driver power input at each load point corresponding to 75, 100, or 110 percent of the BEP flow rate as follows:
E.1.1 Determine the pump power input at 75, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the BEP flow rate by employing a least squares regression to determine a linear relationship between the pump power input at the nominal speed of rotation of the pump and the measured flow rate at the following load points: 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate. Use the linear relationship to determine the pump power input at the nominal speed of rotation for the load points of 75, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the BEP flow rate.
E.1.2 Determine the motor part load losses at each load point corresponding to 75, 100, or 110 percent of the BEP flow rate as follows:
E.1.2.1 Determine the full load motor losses using the appropriate motor efficiency value and horsepower as shown in the following equation:
E.1.2.1.1 For pumps sold with motors other than submersible motors, determine the represented nominal full load motor efficiency as described in section V.E.1.2.1.1.1 of this appendix. For pumps sold with submersible motors determine the default nominal full load submersible motor efficiency as described in section V.E.1.2.1.1.2 of this appendix.
E.1.2.1.1.1. For pumps sold with motors other than submersible motors, the represented nominal full load motor efficiency is that of the motor with which the given pump model is being tested, as determined in accordance with the DOE test procedure for electric motors at § 431.16 and applicable representation procedures in parts 429 and 430.
E.1.2.1.1.2. For pumps sold with submersible motors, the default nominal full load submersible motor efficiency is that listed in Table 2 of this appendix, with the number of poles relevant to the speed at which the pump is being tested (see section I.C.1 of this appendix) and the motor horsepower of the pump being tested.
E.1.2.2 Determine the loss factor at each load point corresponding to 75, 100, or 110 percent of the BEP flow rate as follows:
A.
B.
(1) Be capable of measuring true RMS current, true RMS voltage, and real power up to the 40th harmonic of fundamental supply source frequency, and
(2) For all instruments used to measure a given parameter, have a combined accuracy of ±2.0 percent of the measured value at the fundamental supply source frequency, where combined accuracy is the root sum of squares of individual instrument accuracies.
C.
(1) Maintain the voltage within ±5 percent of the rated value of the motor,
(2) Maintain the frequency within ±1 percent of the rated value of the motor,
(3) Maintain the voltage unbalance of the power supply within ±3 percent of the rated values of the motor, and
(4) Maintain total harmonic distortion below 12 percent throughout the test.
D.
D.1. Adjust the flow by throttling the pump without changing the speed of rotation of the pump to a minimum of seven flow points: 40, 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate of the pump at the nominal speed of rotation, as specified in HI 40.6-2014, except section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463).
D.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as the flow rate at the operating point of maximum overall efficiency on the pump efficiency curve, as determined in accordance with section 40.6.6.3 of HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463), where overall efficiency is the ratio of the pump power output divided by the driver power input, as specified in Table 40.6.2.1 of HI 40.6-2014 and the calculations provided in section 40.6.6.2 are to be disregarded.
E.
E.1. Determine the driver power input at 100 percent of the measured BEP flow rate of the tested pump by employing a least squares regression to determine a linear relationship between the measured driver power input at the nominal speed of rotation of the pump and the measured flow rate, using the following load points: 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate. Use the linear relationship to determine the driver power input at the nominal speed of rotation for the load point of 100 percent of the measured BEP flow rate of the tested pump.
E.2 Determine the driver power input at 25, 50, and 75 percent of the BEP flow rate by measuring the driver power input at the load points defined by:
(1) Those flow rates, and
(2) The associated head points calculated according to the following reference system curve equation:
E.2.1. For pumps sold with motors and continuous controls, the specific head and flow points must be achieved within 10 percent of the calculated values and the measured driver power input must be corrected to the exact intended head and flow conditions using the following equation:
E.2.2. For pumps sold with motors and non-continuous controls, the head associated with each of the specified flow points shall be no lower than 10 percent below that defined by the reference system curve equation in section VI.E.2 of this appendix. Only the measured flow points must be achieved within 10 percent of the calculated values. Correct for flow and head as described in section VI.E.2.1, except do not correct measured head values that are higher than the reference system curve at the same flow rate; only correct flow rate and head values lower than the reference system curve at the same flow rate. For head values higher than the system curve, use the measured head points directly to calculate PEI
A.
A.1. Pumps sold with motors regulated by DOE's energy conservation standards for polyphase NEMA Design B electric motors at § 431.25(g) and continuous controls, and
A.2. Pumps sold with submersible motors and continuous controls.
A.3. Pumps sold with motors not listed in VII.A.1 or VII.A.2 of this appendix and pumps sold without continuous controls, including pumps sold with non-continuous controls, cannot use this section and must apply the test method in section VI of this appendix.
B.
(1) Be capable of measuring true RMS current, true RMS voltage, and real power up to the 40th harmonic of fundamental supply source frequency, and
(2) For all instruments used to measure a given parameter, have a combined accuracy of ±2.0 percent of the measured value at the fundamental supply source frequency, where combined accuracy is the root sum of squares of individual instrument accuracies.
C.
(1) Maintain the voltage within ±5 percent of the rated value of the motor,
(2) Maintain the frequency within ±1 percent of the rated value of the motor,
(3) Maintain the voltage unbalance of the power supply within ±3 percent of the rated values of the motor, and
(4) Maintain total harmonic distortion below 12 percent throughout the test.
D.
D.1. Adjust the flow by throttling the pump without changing the speed of rotation of the pump to a minimum of seven flow points: 40, 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate of the pump at the nominal speed of rotation, as specified in HI 40.6-2014, except section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463).
D.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as the flow rate at the operating point of maximum pump efficiency on the pump efficiency curve, as determined in accordance with section 40.6.6.3 of HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463), where pump efficiency is the ratio of the pump power output divided by the pump power input, as specified in Table 40.6.2.1 of HI 40.6-2014 and the calculations provided in section 40.6.6.2 are to be disregarded.
E.
E.1 Determine the driver power input at each load point corresponding to 25, 50, 75, or 100 percent of the BEP flow rate as follows:
E.1.1 Determine the pump power input at 100 percent of the measured BEP flow rate of the tested pump by employing a least squares regression to determine a linear relationship between the measured pump power input at the nominal speed of rotation and the measured flow rate at the following load points: 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate. Use the linear relationship to determine the pump power input at the nominal speed of rotation for the load point of 100 percent of the BEP flow rate.
E.1.1.1 Determine the pump power input at 25, 50, and 75 percent of the BEP flow rate based on the measured pump power input at 100 percent of the BEP flow rate and using with the following equation:
E.1.2 Calculate the motor and control part load losses at each load point corresponding
E.1.2.1 Determine the full load motor losses using the appropriate motor efficiency value and horsepower as shown in the following equation:
E.1.2.1.1 For pumps sold with motors other than submersible motors, determine the represented nominal full load motor efficiency as described in section VII.E.1.2.1.1.1 of this appendix. For pumps sold with submersible motors, determine the default nominal full load submersible motor efficiency as described in section VII.E.1.2.1.1.2 of this appendix.
E.1.2.1.1.1 For pumps sold with motors other than submersible motors, the represented nominal full load motor efficiency is that of the motor with which the given pump model is being tested, as determined in accordance with the DOE test procedure for electric motors at § 431.16 and applicable representation procedures in parts 429 and 430.
E.1.2.1.1.2 For pumps sold with submersible motors, the default nominal full load submersible motor efficiency is that listed in Table 2 of this appendix, with the number of poles relevant to the speed at which the pump is being tested (see section I.C.1 of this appendix) and the motor horsepower of the pump being tested.
E.1.2.2 For load points corresponding to 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of the BEP flow rate, determine the part load loss factor at each load point as follows:
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 |