Page Range | 52589-52739 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
81 FR 52687 - Deletion of Items From Sunshine Act Meeting | |
81 FR 52714 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
81 FR 52721 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
81 FR 52678 - California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Amendments to On-Highway Heavy-Duty Vehicle In-Use Compliance Program, Amendments to 2007 and Subsequent Model Year On-Highway Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, and Amendments to Truck Requirements; Request for Waiver of Preemption; Opportunity for Public Hearing and Public Comment | |
81 FR 52682 - Request for Nominations for a Science Advisory Board Panel To Review Risk and Technology Review Screening Methods | |
81 FR 52703 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Energy Benchmarking OMB Control No.: 2502-NEW | |
81 FR 52708 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: HUD-Owned Real Estate Sales Contract and Addendums | |
81 FR 52739 - Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 52713 - Hearings of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committees on the Federal Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and Criminal Procedure | |
81 FR 52684 - California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures for Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles (OHRVs); Request for Authorization; Opportunity for Public Hearing and Comment | |
81 FR 52668 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Study of Digital Learning Resources for Instructional English Learner Students | |
81 FR 52680 - California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Greenhouse Gas Emissions From 2014 and Subsequent Model Year Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles; Request for Waiver of Preemption; Opportunity for Public Hearing and Public Comment | |
81 FR 52733 - Norfolk Southern Railway Company-Abandonment Exemption-in Charleston, S.C. | |
81 FR 52694 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
81 FR 52697 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
81 FR 52696 - National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 52698 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 52699 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing | |
81 FR 52697 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing | |
81 FR 52715 - Notice of Information Collection | |
81 FR 52666 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review | |
81 FR 52688 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
81 FR 52691 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
81 FR 52688 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies | |
81 FR 52733 - International Security Advisory Board (ISAB); Meeting Notice Closed Meeting | |
81 FR 52689 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
81 FR 52613 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
81 FR 52668 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License | |
81 FR 52669 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Extension | |
81 FR 52610 - Vegetable and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders; Notice of Request for Extension and Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
81 FR 52645 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Pier Replacement Project | |
81 FR 52637 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Bravo Wharf Recapitalization Project | |
81 FR 52738 - Unblocking of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons, Executive Order 12978 | |
81 FR 52737 - Unblocking of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons, Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act | |
81 FR 52717 - New Postal Products | |
81 FR 52665 - U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS®) Advisory Committee | |
81 FR 52716 - Tennessee Valley Authority; Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1; Maximum Number of Tritium Producing Burnable Absorber Rods | |
81 FR 52636 - Evaluation of State Coastal Management Programs | |
81 FR 52687 - Filing Dates for the Ohio Special Democratic Primary Election in the 8th Congressional District | |
81 FR 52612 - Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee (LTFAC) | |
81 FR 52694 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
81 FR 52711 - Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Approval; Special Park Use Applications | |
81 FR 52710 - Notice of Application for Withdrawal and Opportunity for Public Meeting; California | |
81 FR 52611 - Food Distribution Program: Value of Donated Foods From July 1, 2016 Through June 30, 2017 | |
81 FR 52612 - Notice of New Fee Sites | |
81 FR 52677 - Staff Notice of Alleged Violations | |
81 FR 52671 - Notice of Commission Staff Attendance | |
81 FR 52676 - Staff Notice of Alleged Violations | |
81 FR 52670 - City of Farmington, NM; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene | |
81 FR 52673 - Competitive Transmission Development Technical Conference; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments | |
81 FR 52708 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Permit Applications | |
81 FR 52693 - Submission for OMB Review; Pollution Prevention and Right-to-Know Information | |
81 FR 52691 - Submission for OMB Review; Contractor Use of Interagency Fleet Management System Vehicles | |
81 FR 52614 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Waterfront Improvement Projects | |
81 FR 52695 - General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting, Establishment of a Public Docket, Request for Comments | |
81 FR 52666 - Government-Industry Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
81 FR 52593 - Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement-015 LeadTrac System of Records | |
81 FR 52700 - Privacy Act of 1974; Department of Homeland Security/ICE-015 LeadTrac System of Records | |
81 FR 52712 - Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil, India, Korea, Russia, and the United Kingdom; Supplemental Schedule for the Subject Investigations | |
81 FR 52713 - Certain Access Control Systems and Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation | |
81 FR 52674 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
81 FR 52677 - Osborn Wind Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
81 FR 52672 - Drift Sand Wind Project, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
81 FR 52672 - Desert Wind Farm LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
81 FR 52670 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
81 FR 52675 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
81 FR 52677 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
81 FR 52714 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Modifications of Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act | |
81 FR 52692 - Information Collection; Permitting Notice of Initiation | |
81 FR 52730 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 11.330 To Combine the TOPS and LAST Data Products and Make Minor Correcting and Conforming Changes to the Description of TOPS Viewer | |
81 FR 52717 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Order Declaring Effective a Minor Rule Violation Plan | |
81 FR 52722 - Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to Rule 17d-2; Notice of Filing and Order Approving and Declaring Effective an Amendment to the Plan for the Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Among Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., NASDAQ BX, Inc., NASDAQ PHLX LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, National Stock Exchange, Inc., New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE MKT LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., and Investors Exchange LLC Relating to the Surveillance, Investigation, and Enforcement of Insider Trading Rules | |
81 FR 52718 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 11.21, Retail Orders, To Conform to the Rules of Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. and Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. | |
81 FR 52613 - Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 225 Under Alternative Site Framework Springfield, Missouri | |
81 FR 52614 - Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 103 Under Alternative Site Framework Grand Forks, North Dakota | |
81 FR 52686 - Termination of Dormant Proceedings | |
81 FR 52614 - Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 149 Under Alternative Site Framework Freeport, Texas | |
81 FR 52690 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
81 FR 52714 - Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements | |
81 FR 52636 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
81 FR 52635 - Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
81 FR 52734 - Baby Jogger, LLC, Ruling on Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance | |
81 FR 52590 - Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Basic Provisions | |
81 FR 52590 - Common Crop Insurance Regulations; Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions; Correction | |
81 FR 52608 - Medical Review Board (MRB) Meeting: Public Meeting | |
81 FR 52589 - Removal of Program To Assess Organic Certifying Agencies in 7 CFR Part 37 | |
81 FR 52595 - Miscellaneous Amendments to Business Loan Programs and Surety Bond Guarantee Program | |
81 FR 52591 - Special Procedures for Discretionary Access to Classified Historical Central Intelligence Agency Records Requested by Other Federal Agencies in Furtherance of Historical Research |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Economic Development Administration
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
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.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Direct final rule.
This final rule informs the public that the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is removing the Program to Assess Organic Certifying Agencies from the Code of Federal Regulations. This action removes unnecessary regulations from the CFR. Since the publication of the organic regulations, the Program to Assess Organic Certifying Agencies is no longer applicable or necessary.
This rule is effective November 7, 2016 without further action, unless adverse comment is received by September 8, 2016. If adverse comment is received, AMS will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
Comments should be submitted online at
Jeffrey Waite, Branch Chief, Auditing Services Branch, Quality Assessment Division; Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 3932-S, STOP 0258, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0258; telephone (202) 720-4411, or email
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined not to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order 13563. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has waived the review process.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation does not have tribal implications, in that it would not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments.
The purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) [5 U.S.C. 601-612] is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. AMS has determined that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined by RFA, because the services are voluntary and provided on a fee-for-service basis, and are not subject to scalability based on the business size. Moreover, there are no entities being provided services under this part.
AMS 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.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. chapter 35], it has been determined that this rule will not change the information collection and recordkeeping requirements previously approved, and will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping burden on users.
The information collection and recordkeeping requirements of this part were approved by OMB under 44 U.S.C. chapter 35 and assigned OMB Control Number 0581-0183. The information collection was retired by OMB on its expiration date of April 30, 2003. A change of worksheet was submitted to OMB on February 21, 2003, to terminate that collection because form LS-314 Application for Service was obsolete. Form LS-313 Application for Service and the ISO 65 Guidelines were transferred to OMB Control Number 0581-0191 for the National Organic Program (NOP). As a result, no information collection under 7 CFR part 37 remained.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. There are no civil justice implications associated with this direct final rule.
AMS has considered the potential civil rights implications of this rule on minorities, women, or persons with disabilities to ensure that no person or group shall be discriminated against on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital or family status, political beliefs, parental status, or
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, which directs agencies to construe, in regulations and otherwise, a Federal statute to preempt state law only when the statute contains an express preemption provision. There are no federalism implications associated with this rule.
The Program to Assess Organic Certifying Agencies was published through a
Administrative practice and procedure, Agriculture, Assessment of organic certifying agencies, Incorporation by reference, Organically produced agricultural commodities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, under the authority 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627, and as discussed in the preamble, the Agency is amending 7 CFR chapter 1 by removing part 37.
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.
Final rule; correcting amendment.
This document contains corrections to the final regulation which was published June 13, 2016 (81 FR 38061-38067). The regulation, as here pertinent, related to the insurance of Texas Citrus Fruit.
This rule is effective August 9, 2016.
Tim Hoffmann, Director, Product Administration and Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, Beacon Facility, Stop 0812, Room 421, P.O. Box 419205, Kansas City, MO 64141-6205, telephone (816) 926-7730.
The final regulation that is the subject of this correction revised the Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions published June 13, 2016, (81 FR 38061-38067).
As published, the final regulation contains sections where text was inadvertently removed that may prove to be misleading and needs to be corrected. In section 1, the definition of production guarantee (per acre) needs to be corrected to add section (a). Additionally, in paragraph 7(a)(4), the term “the” was inadvertently repeated following the phrase “That has produced an average yield of at least three tons per acre.”
Crop insurance, Texas citrus fruit, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Correction of publication.
Accordingly, 7 CFR part 457 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(o).
The addition reads as follows:
(a) First stage production guarantee—The second stage production guarantee multiplied by forty percent (40%).
(b) Second stage production guarantee. The quantity of citrus (in tons) determined by multiplying the yield determined in accordance with section 3(e) of these Crop Provisions by the coverage level percentage you elect.
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.
Final rule; correcting amendment.
This document contains a correction to the link in the definition of “limited resource farmer” that is currently provided in the CFR.
Tim Hoffmann, Director, Product Management, Product Administration and Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, Beacon Facility, Stop 0812, Room 421, P.O. Box 419205, Kansas City, MO 64141-6205, telephone (816) 926-7730.
This correction is being published to correct the link that is no longer valid provided in the definition of “limited resource farmer.”
Administrative practice and procedure, Crop insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
As currently published, 7 CFR 457.8 contains an outdated link in the definition of “limited resource farmer.” Accordingly, 7 CFR part 457 is corrected by making the following amendment:
7 U.S.C. 1506(l) and 1506(o).
Central Intelligence Agency.
Final rule.
Consistent with the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, as amended, and Executive Order 13526, as amended (or successor Orders), and section 1.6 of Executive Order 12333, as amended (or successor Orders), CIA is providing greater clarity about the procedures under which, as a matter of discretion, it may provide access to classified historical CIA records requested by other Federal agencies in furtherance of historical research when such access is not expressly required by statute. This rule is being issued as a final rule without prior notice of proposed rulemaking as allowed by the Administrative Procedure Act for rules of agency procedure and interpretation.
Effective August 9, 2016.
Joseph W. Lambert, (703) 613-1379.
Consistent with the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, as amended, Executive Order 13526, as amended (or successor Orders), and section 1.6 of Executive Order 12333, as amended (or successor Orders), the CIA has revised its regulations to more clearly set forth the procedures used to provide, as a matter of discretion, access to classified historical CIA records requested by other Federal agencies in furtherance of historical research and when such access is not expressly required by statute. This rule is being issued as a final rule without prior notice of proposed rulemaking as allowed by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A) for rules of agency procedure and interpretation.
Archives and records, Classified information, Historical records.
Accordingly, the CIA is adding a new 32 CFR part 1911 to read as follows:
50 U.S.C. 3001
(a)
(b)
As used in this part:
This part does not apply to requests for access to current information or finished intelligence that is routinely disseminated to other Federal agencies in support of the CIA's intelligence, counterintelligence, or special activities responsibilities, or for administrative purposes. This part applies to special requests for access to classified historical CIA records in furtherance of historical research and not expressly required by statute that fall outside of the regular channels and procedures that CIA has already established to provide information to U.S. Government customers. Examples include, but are not limited to, a Federal agency, including a branch of the military, conducting research in preparation for the production of a set of historical studies, an official agency history, or a review of past military activities, that require access to classified historical CIA records.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) That the requester is a current staff employee or contractor of the U.S. Government;
(2) That the requester is currently cleared, or security approved, for access to classified information and that the specific clearance or security approval and access levels of that individual has been officially recorded;
(3) That the scope of the request for information is clearly delineated;
(4) That the information requested is reasonably accessible and can be located and compiled with a reasonable effort;
(5) That a nondisclosure agreement with a prepublication review clause has been executed by the requester;
(6) That all notes and any resulting document will be appropriately safeguarded, that further access will be appropriately limited, and that no further dissemination of information such as that marked ORCON (Dissemination and Extraction of Information Controlled by Originator) or HUMINT (Human Intelligence) shall be made beyond the requesting agency unless CIA permission is obtained;
(7) That if the resulting document containing CIA information or equities is intended to be declassified, the document will be submitted to the Coordinator for declassification review;
(8) That the information and documents will remain classified until a final declassification review and release decision is made by CIA; and,
(9) That the request for access is an official agency request, made in the requester's official capacity on behalf of the requester's agency.
(d)
(2) If access to classified historical CIA records is granted, as a rule, such access shall be provided on CIA premises only. No copies of any classified historical CIA records shall be provided to the requester for reference and use on requester premises without the express approval of the Director, Information Management Services. In exceptional cases, if the provision of classified CIA historical records to the requester for reference and use on requester premises is permitted, the classified CIA historical records provided shall not be disclosed or disseminated beyond the requesting agency, and shall be returned to CIA or destroyed when use of the records has ended. Similarly, any notes taken that are derived from classified historical CIA records that have been accessed in accordance with this part shall not be disclosed or disseminated beyond the requesting agency.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Privacy Office.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of Homeland Security is giving concurrent notice of a newly established system of records pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 for the “Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement-015 LeadTrac System of Records” and this proposed rulemaking. In this proposed rulemaking, the Department proposes to exempt portions of the system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements.
Comments must be received on or before September 9, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2016-0052, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Amber Smith, Privacy Officer, (202-732-3300), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th Street SW., Mail Stop 5004, Washington, DC 20536, email:
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is giving concurrent notice of a newly established system of records pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 for the “DHS/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)-015 LeadTrac System of Records” and this proposed rule. In this rulemaking, the Department proposes to exempt portions of the system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements.
The LeadTrac System of Records describes the operation of an ICE information technology system of the same name, which is owned by ICE's Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) directorate. This system contains a repository of data that is ingested on a routine or
This record system allows DHS to collect and maintain information about foreign students, exchange visitors, and other non-immigrant visitors to the United Sates who overstay their period of admission or otherwise violate the terms of their visa, immigrant, or non-immigrant status (collectively, status violators), and associated organizations and individuals. Using LeadTrac, the Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit (CTCEU) collects personally identifiable information (PII) from key Department of Homeland Security (DHS) databases and analyzes it to identify individuals who are suspected status violators. The Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit will also use LeadTrac to collect information about organizations such as schools, universities, and exchange visitor programs being investigated by CTCEU, as well as information about individuals, including designated school officials (DSOs) and associates of suspected status violators.
ICE collects information in LeadTrac about suspected status violators and organizations to help enforce compliance with U.S. immigration laws. Specifically, the information is collected and used to support the following DHS activities: Investigating and determining immigration status and criminal history information of individuals; carrying out the appropriate enforcement activity required; identifying fraudulent schools and/or organizations and the people affiliated with the school or organization; providing HSI and ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) with viable lead information to further investigate suspected status violators; and carrying out the required enforcement activity.
The CTCEU and Overstay Analysis Unit (OAU) personnel query a variety of DHS and non-DHS information systems and enter the results into LeadTrac to build a unified picture of an individual's entry/exit, visa, criminal and immigration history, and will comparably process information about associated individuals and organizations. Using this assembled information, CTCEU will determine which individuals or organizations warrant additional investigation for possible status violations or the operation of fraudulent institutions, and will request that the appropriate HSI field offices initiate investigations. Some of the individuals about whom ICE collects information in LeadTrac, such as DSOs and associates of suspected status violators, may have lawful permanent resident (LPR) status or be U.S. citizens.
Consistent with the Department's information sharing mission, information stored in the DHS/ICE-015
This newly established system will be included in DHS's inventory of record systems.
The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate 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.
The Privacy Act allows Government agencies to exempt certain records from the access and amendment provisions. If an agency claims an exemption, it must issue a rule to make clear to the public the reasons why a particular exemption is claimed, and provide an opportunity to comment.
DHS is claiming exemptions from certain requirements of the Privacy Act for DHS/ICE-015 LeadTrac System of Records. Some information in this system of records relates to official DHS national security, law enforcement, and immigration activities. These exemptions are needed to protect information relating to DHS activities from disclosure to subjects or others related to these activities. Specifically, the exemptions are required to preclude subjects of these activities from frustrating these processes; to avoid disclosure of activity techniques; to protect the identities and physical safety of confidential informants and law enforcement personnel; to ensure DHS's ability to obtain information from third parties and other sources; and to protect the privacy of third parties. Disclosure of information to the subject of the inquiry could also permit the subject to avoid detection or apprehension.
In appropriate circumstances, when compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement purposes of this system and the overall law enforcement process, the applicable exemptions may be waived on a case-by-case basis.
A system of records notice for DHS/ICE-015 LeadTrac System of Records is also published in this issue of the
Freedom of information; Privacy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS proposes to amend chapter I of title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; (6 U.S.C. 101
74. The DHS/ICE-015 LeadTrac System of Records consists of electronic and paper records and will be used by ICE investigative and homeland security personnel. The DHS/ICE-015 LeadTrac System of Records contains aggregated data from ICE and DHS law enforcement and homeland security IT systems, as well as data uploaded by ICE personnel for analysis from various public, private, and commercial sources during the course of an investigation or analytical project. This information may include some or all of the following types of personally identifiable information: Identifying and biographic data such as name and date of birth; citizenship and immigration data; border crossing data; customs import-export history; criminal history; contact information; criminal associates; family relationships; photographs and other media; and employment and education information. The records also include tips received by ICE from the public concerning suspicious or potentially illegal activity, as well as telephone call detail records, which contain call transactions and subscriber data, obtained via lawful process during the course of an investigation. This information is maintained by ICE for analytical and investigative purposes and is made accessible to ICE personnel via the LeadTrac system interface. The system is used to conduct research supporting the production of law enforcement activities; provide lead information for investigative inquiry and follow-up; assist in the conduct of ICE criminal and administrative investigations; assist in the disruption of terrorist or other criminal activity; and discover previously unknown connections among existing ICE investigations.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4); (d); (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), (e)(8); (f); and (g). Additionally, the Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I); and (f). When a record received from another system has been exempted in that source system under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) or (k)(2), DHS will claim the same exemptions for those records that are claimed for the original primary systems of records from which they originated and claims any additional exemptions set forth here.
Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made, for the following reasons:
(a) From subsection (c)(3) and (4) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire investigative process. Disclosure of corrections or notations of dispute may impede investigations by requiring DHS to inform each witness or individual contacted during the investigation of each correction or notation pertaining to information provided them during the investigation.
(b) From subsection (d) (Access to Records) because access to the records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS or another agency. Access to the records could permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension. Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities and would impose an unreasonable administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continually reinvestigated. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information could disclose classified and
(c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information) because in the course of investigations into potential violations of federal law, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced occasionally may be unclear, or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful activity.
(d) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of Information from Individuals) because requiring that information be collected from the subject of an investigation would alert the subject to the nature or existence of the investigation, thereby interfering with that investigation and related law enforcement activities.
(e) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to Subjects) because providing such detailed information could impede law enforcement by compromising the existence of a confidential investigation or reveal the identity of witnesses or confidential informants.
(f) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (e)(4)(I) (Agency Requirements) and (f) (Agency Rules), because portions of this system are exempt from the individual access provisions of subsection (d) for the reasons noted above, and therefore DHS is not required to establish requirements, rules, or procedures with respect to such access. Providing notice to individuals with respect to existence of records pertaining to them in the system of records or otherwise setting up procedures pursuant to which individuals may access and view records pertaining to themselves in the system would undermine investigative efforts and reveal the identities of witnesses, and potential witnesses, and confidential informants.
(g) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of Information) because with the collection of information for law enforcement purposes, it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. Compliance with subsection (e)(5) would preclude DHS agents from using their investigative training and exercise of good judgment to both conduct and report on investigations.
(h) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on Individuals) because compliance would interfere with DHS's ability to obtain, serve, and issue subpoenas, warrants, and other law enforcement mechanisms that may be filed under seal and could result in disclosure of investigative techniques, procedures, and evidence.
(i) From subsection (g)(1) (Civil Remedies) to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) continues to review the regulations governing the delivery and oversight of its business lending programs. SBA is proposing changes to some of these regulations for clarity and to increase participation in: The Surety Bond Guarantee (SBG) Program, the 7(a) Loan Program, the Microloan Program, and the Development Company Loan Program (504 Loan Program). In addition, the proposed changes will streamline the regulations by removing or revising any outdated regulations.
SBA must receive comments to the proposed rule on or before October 11, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3245-AF85, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
SBA will post all comments on
Robert Carpenter, Financial Analyst, Office of Financial Assistance, Office of Capital Access, Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416; telephone: (202) 205-7654;
Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (January 21, 2011), directs agencies to ensure that regulations are accessible, consistent, written in plain language, and easy to understand in order to foster economic growth and job creation. Executive Order 13563 provides that our regulatory system “must identify and use the best, most innovative and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.” Executive Order 13563 further provides that “[t]o facilitate the periodic review of existing significant regulations, agencies shall consider how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” SBA has reviewed its regulations with regard to the Business Loan Programs, as defined below, and is proposing a number of amendments and revisions to accomplish this goal.
The SBA programs affected by this proposed rule are the 7(a) Loan Program authorized pursuant to section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 636(a)), the Microloan Program authorized pursuant to section 7(m) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 636(m)), the Surety Bond Guarantee Program authorized pursuant to part B of title IV of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 694b
The Agency requests comments on all aspects of the regulatory revisions in this proposed rule and on any related issues affecting the Business Loan Programs.
SBA's proposed changes are described in this section, with additional details on each located in the section-by-section analysis that follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13. “
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
1.
2.
3.
The proposed rule would increase the Quick Bond eligible contract limit from $250,000 to $400,000. Implementation of the higher contract limit would increase the use of the Quick Bond and would provide access to bonding for more small contractors. It would more closely conform to the contract limits allowed in the abbreviated applications offered in the surety industry, and would respond to sureties' requests to raise the current limit.
Experience with the Quick Bond has been favorable at the $250,000 limit. Since its implementation in August of 2012, SBA has guaranteed more than 1,500 bonds and only 27 defaults have occurred. If the contract amount is increased, SBA would continue to closely monitor its experience with the Quick Bond.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Accordingly, SBA is proposing to amend § 115.68 to adopt the same guarantee percentages for the PSB Program that are provided in the Prior Approval Program under § 115.31:
(1) SBA would reimburse a PSB Surety for 90% of the Loss incurred and paid if: (i) The total amount of the Contract at the time of Execution of the bond is $100,000 or less. Like the Prior Approval Program, when the Contract amount increases to more than $100,000 after bond Execution, the guarantee percentage would decrease by one percentage point for each $5,000 of increase or part thereof, but would not decrease below 80%. If the Contract decreases to $100,000, or less, after bond Execution, the guarantee percentage would increase to 90% if the Surety provides SBA with evidence supporting the decrease and any other information or documents requested; or (ii) the bond was issued on behalf of a small business owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, on behalf of a qualified HUBZone small business concern, or on behalf of a small business owned and controlled by Veterans or a small business owned and controlled by Service-Disabled Veterans;
(2) SBA would reimburse a PSB Surety in an amount not to exceed 80% of the Loss incurred and paid on bond for Contracts in excess of $100,000 which are executed on behalf of non-disadvantaged concerns; and
(3) If the Contract or Order amount is increased above the Applicable Statutory Limit (as defined in § 115.10) after bond Execution, SBA's share of the Loss is limited to that percentage of the increased Contract or Order amount that the Applicable Statutory Limit represents multiplied by the guarantee percentage approved by SBA. For example, if a contract amount increases to $6,800,000, SBA's share of the loss under an 80% guarantee is limited to 76.5% (6,500,000/6,800,000 = 95.6% × 80% = 76.5%.)
8.
9.
(1)
(2)
(3) Paragraph (a)(6).
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
In § 120.220(b), in an effort to incorporate advances in technology, SBA proposes to update the regulation to advise Lenders to pay the guaranty fee electronically and to revise the timeframe within which a Lender must pay the guaranty fee to SBA for loans with a maturity of 12 months or less (“short-term loans”). SBA proposes to revise the timing of payment of the fee on a short-term loan from the time of application to within ten business days of SBA's approval of the loan. The current requirement was implemented when Lenders paid fees using checks. Currently, fees are paid electronically through Pay.gov. Requiring payment of the fee with the application for guaranty on short-term loans creates a bottleneck that delays the processing center's turn-around time for these loans.
Given the longer timeframe for the Lender to pay the fee, SBA also proposes to remove the first two sentences of § 120.220(c), which state when SBA will refund the guaranty fee paid on a short-term loan. With the additional time provided for payment of the fee, there will be no need for refunds.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
SBA also proposes to add a new heading before § 120.440 that reads “Delegated Authority Criteria” and to add new language in § 120.440 that sets forth the criteria for Lenders when applying for initial approval or renewal of delegated authority in the 7(a) Loan Program. These criteria are essentially identical to the criteria currently included in SBA's Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 50 10 5(H), subpart A for the PLP, SBA Express and Export Express Programs. Under this new provision, SBA, in its discretion, would consider whether the Lender:
(a) Has the continuing ability to evaluate, process, close, disburse, service, liquidate and litigate SBA loans. This includes the ability to develop and analyze complete loan packages. SBA may consider the experience and capability of Lender's management and staff.
(b) Has satisfactory SBA performance (as defined in § 120.410(a)(2));
(c) Is in compliance with SBA Loan Program Requirements (
(d) Has completed to SBA's satisfaction all required corrective actions;
(e) Is subject to any enforcement action, order or agreement with other regulators or the presence of other regulatory concerns as determined by SBA; and
(f) Whether Lender exhibits other risk factors (
With respect to “low SBA activity,” SBA considers making 5 SBA-guaranteed loans or less in a 2 year period to be low activity. Additionally, with respect to SBA loan volume, SBA would look at the Lender's proportion of SBA lending relative to the Lender's total loan portfolio.
Section 120.441 will be reserved for future use.
23.
24.
25.
26.
SBA also proposes to eliminate the reference to SBA Form 1085 within this section as SBA Form 1085 is obsolete.
27.
28.
29.
30.
SBA also proposes to insert the word “individuals” in place of “members” to clarify in § 120.823(d)(4)(ii)(C) that individuals serving on the loan committee of a CDC do not have to be Members of the CDC or the CDC's Board. SBA no longer requires a CDC to have a membership and some CDC's were confused by the use of the term “member” in this section. Therefore, SBA intends to change the word “member” to “individual”.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
With respect to Reviews, under current regulations, SBA charges Lenders a fee for the following types of Reviews, including but not limited to, PARRiS Full Reviews, PARRiS Analytical Reviews, Targeted Reviews, and Delegated Authority Reviews. This fee is assessed based on the cost that SBA incurs under its contract for these Reviews. Under the proposed rule, SBA is specifying that SBA can charge a Lender the actual cost for Lender Loan Reviews (
The proposed section would also provide that SBA has discretion in how it allocates the costs to Lenders to allow contracting flexibility in how SBA pays for this cost. It would specify, consistent with SBA's current practice and current contracts, that in general, where the costs that SBA incurs for the oversight activity are specific to a Lender, SBA will charge that Lender for the actual costs and, where the costs that SBA incurs for the oversight activity are not sufficiently specific to a particular Lender but may be a flat fee paid to a vendor, SBA will charge a Lender based on that Lender's portion of SBA guarantees in the portfolio or segment of the portfolio the activity covers. For example, under its current review contract, SBA pays its contractor for each specific Lender's Full Review and SBA passes that cost along to the Lender for which the Review was conducted. Under the L/LMS contract, SBA pays its contractor a flat fee for providing L/LMS services that cover all Lenders and this amount is apportioned among all Lenders based on portfolio size.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this proposed rule is not a “significant” regulatory action for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. In the interest of transparency, however, SBA has drafted a Regulatory Impact Analysis for the public's information in the next section. This is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 800.
1. Is there a need for this regulatory action?
The Agency believes it needs to streamline and reduce regulatory burdens to facilitate robust participation in the business loan and surety bond programs that assist small and underserved U.S. businesses.
2. What are the potential benefits and costs of this regulatory action?
As stated above, the potential benefits of this proposed rule are based on its elimination of unnecessary participation burdens. Participants will benefit from clear and simpler regulatory directions that enable them to provide small business loans and bonds in a more efficient and cost effective manner.
3. What alternatives have been considered?
One “alternative” would be to eliminate even more regulatory burdens. The Agency will consider public comment and suggestions on how that can be done responsibly without substantially increasing the risk of waste, fraud, or abuse of the programs.
A description of the need for this regulatory action and benefits and costs associated with this action, including possible distributional impacts that relate to Executive Order 13563, are included above in the Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866.
SBA's Business Loan Programs operate through the Agency's lending partners, which are Surety Bond Companies for the Surety Bond Guarantee Program, 7(a) Lenders for the 7(a) Loan Program, third party lenders, CDCs for the 504 Loan Program, and Microloan Intermediaries for the Microloan Program. The Agency has participated in public forums and meetings which have included outreach to hundreds of its lending partners to seek valuable insight, guidance, and suggestions for program reform.
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, eliminates ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have retroactive or preemptive effect.
SBA has determined that this proposed 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, for the purposes of Executive Order 13132, SBA has determined that this proposed rule has no federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment.
SBA has determined that this proposed rule imposes additional reporting requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). As described above, SBA proposes to require all participating sureties to notify SBA of all contracts that were successfully completed on a quarterly basis. The public is invited to comment on this proposed new report and to
SBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of SBA's functions, including whether the information will have a practical utility; (2) the accuracy of SBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology. SBA will submit the proposed form and other documents required under the Paperwork Reduction Act to OMB for review and approval.
A summary description of this information collection, the respondents, and the estimate of the annual hour burden resulting from this new process is provided below. Included in the estimate is the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering information needed, and completing and reviewing the responses.
When an agency issues a rulemaking proposal, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires the agency to “prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory analysis” which will “describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the proposed rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There are 23 sureties (none of them small entities) that participate in the SBG Program, and no part of this rule would impose any significant cost or burden on them. Although the rulemaking will impact all of the approximately 5,000 7(a) Lenders (some of which are small), all of the approximately 250 CDCs (all of which are small), and 145 Microloan Intermediaries (most of which are small) SBA does not believe the impact will be significant. The proposed rule will reduce the burden of the Agency's lending partners because they choose their own level of program participation (
SBA believes that this proposed rule encompasses best practice guidance that aligns with the Agency's mission to increase access to capital for small businesses and facilitate American job preservation and creation with the removal of unnecessary regulatory requirements. A review of the summary and preamble above will provide more detailed explanations discussing the specific improvements that will reduce regulatory burdens and encourage increased program participation. For these reasons, SBA has determined that there is no negative impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBA invites comment from members of the public who believe there will be a significant impact on sureties, microloan intermediaries, participant lenders, CDCs, or small businesses.
Claims, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses, Surety bonds.
Community development, Equal employment opportunity, Loan programs—business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, SBA proposes to amend 13 CFR parts 115 and 120 as follows:
5 U.S.C. app 3; 15 U.S.C. 687b, 687c, 694a, 694b note; and Pub. L. 110-246, Sec. 12079, 122 Stat. 1651.
The Surety must submit a Quarterly Contract Completion Report within 45 days after the close of each fiscal year quarter ending December 31, March 31, June 30, and September 30, that identifies each contract successfully completed during the quarter.
The report shall include:
(a) The SBA Surety Bond Guarantee Number,
(b) Name of the Principal,
(c) The original Contract Dollar Amount,
(d) The revised Contract Dollar Amount (if applicable),
(e) The date of Contract completion, and
(f) A summary specifying the fee amounts paid to SBA by the Surety and Principal, the fee amounts due to SBA as a result of any increases in the Contract amount, and the fee amounts to be refunded to the Principal or rebated to the Surety as a result of any decreases in the Contract amount.
(b) * * * For a period of nine months following admission to the PSB program, the Surety must obtain SBA's prior written approval before executing a bond greater than $2 million so that SBA may evaluate the Surety's performance in its underwriting and claims and recovery functions. At the end of this nine month period, SBA may in its discretion extend this period to allow SBA to further evaluate the Surety's performance.
SBA reimburses a PSB Surety in the same percentages and under the same terms as set forth in § 115.31.
15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(14), (h) and note, 636(a), (h) and (m), 650, 687(f), 696(3) and 697(a) and (e); Pub. L. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115; Pub. L. 111-240, 124 Stat. 2504; Pub. L. 114-38, 129 Stat. 437.
An Eligible Passive Company must use loan proceeds to either acquire or lease, and/or improve or renovate, real or personal property (including eligible refinancing), that it leases to one or more Operating Companies for conducting the Operating Company's business (references to Operating Company in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section mean each Operating Company) or to finance a change of ownership between the existing owners of the Eligible Passive Company. Any ownership structure or legal form may qualify as an Eligible Passive Company.
(a) * * *
(3) The lease between the Eligible Passive Company and the Operating Company must be in writing and must be subordinated to SBA's mortgage, trust deed lien, or security interest on the property. Also, the Eligible Passive Company (as landlord) must furnish as collateral for the loan an assignment of all rents paid under the lease. The rent or lease payments cannot exceed the amount necessary to make the loan payment to the lender, and an additional amount to cover the EPC's direct expenses of holding the property, such as maintenance, insurance and property taxes;
(6) Each holder of an ownership interest constituting at least 20 percent of either the Eligible Passive Company or the Operating Company must guarantee the loan (the trustee shall execute the guaranty on behalf of any trust). SBA, in its discretion, consulting with the Participating Lender, may require other appropriate individuals to guarantee the loan as well, except SBA generally will not require personal guarantees from those owning less than 5 percent ownership.
The addition and revisions read as follows:
(e) The applicant may not use any of the proceeds to pay past-due Federal or state payroll taxes;
(g) Any use restricted by §§ 120.201, 120.202, and 120.884 (specific to 7(a) loans and 504 loans respectively).
The revision reads as follows:
(a) * * * SBA, in its discretion, consulting with the Participating Lender, may require other appropriate individuals to guarantee the loan as well, except SBA generally will not require personal guarantees from those owning less than 5 percent ownership.
(a) * * * Subsequent changes may occur 2 business days (or more) after a change in the identified base rate;
(c)
(i) The prime rate;
(ii) The thirty-day (1-month) London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) plus 3 percentage points; or
(iii) The Optional Peg Rate.
(2) The prime or LIBOR rate will be that which is in effect on the date SBA receives a complete loan application. The initial prime or LIBOR base rate and subsequent changes to the prime or LIBOR base rate must follow the rates as printed in a national financial newspaper or Web site published each business day.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) For loans approved under section 7(a)(31) of the Small Business Act to veterans and/or the spouse of a veteran. In fiscal years when the 7(a) program is at zero subsidy, SBA will not collect a guarantee fee in connection with a loan made under section 7(a)(31) of the Small Business Act to a business owned and controlled by a veteran or the spouse of a veteran.
(b) * * * For a loan with a maturity of twelve (12) months or less, the Lender must pay the guaranty fee to SBA electronically within 10 business days after SBA gives its loan approval. * * * For a loan with a maturity in excess of twelve (12) months, the Lender must pay the guaranty fee to SBA electronically within 90 days after SBA gives its loan approval. * * *
Unless otherwise allowed by SBA Loan Program Requirements, the Lender may charge and collect from the applicant or Borrower only the following fees and expenses:
(e)
The Lender or its Associates may not share in any premium received from the sale of an SBA guaranteed loan in the secondary market with a Service Provider, packager, or other loan-referral source.
(e) Be in good standing with SBA, as defined in § 120.420(f) (and determined by SBA in its discretion), and, as applicable, with its state regulator and be considered satisfactory by its Federal Financial Institution Regulator (as determined by SBA and based on, for example, information in published orders/agreements and call reports); and
(a) In making its decision to grant or renew a delegated authority, SBA considers whether the Lender, as determined by SBA in its discretion:
(1) Has the continuing ability to evaluate, process, close, disburse, service, liquidate and litigate SBA loans. This includes the ability to develop and analyze complete loan packages. SBA may consider the experience and capability of Lender's management and staff.
(2) Has satisfactory SBA performance (as defined in § 120.410(a)(2));
(3) Is in compliance with SBA Loan Program Requirements (
(4) Has completed to SBA's satisfaction all required corrective actions;
(5) Is subject to any enforcement action, order or agreement with a regulator or the presence of other regulatory concerns as determined by SBA; and
(6) Whether Lender exhibits other risk factors (
(b) Delegated authority decisions are made by the appropriate SBA official in accordance with Delegations of Authority, and are final.
(c) If delegated authority is approved or renewed, Lender must execute a Supplemental Guarantee Agreement, which will specify a term not to exceed two years. SBA may grant shortened renewals based on risk or any of the other delegated authority criteria. Lenders with less than 3 years of SBA lending experience will be limited to a term of 1 year or less.
(b) If SBA determines, at any time, that any of the events set forth in paragraph (a) of this section occurred in connection with that loan, SBA is entitled to recover any moneys paid on the guarantee plus interest from the Lender. In the exercise of its rights, SBA may utilize all legal means available, including offset and judicial remedies.
(a) * * *
(4) Is in good standing with SBA (as the D/FA determines in his or her discretion), and is Satisfactory with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) if it is a national bank, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation if it is a bank not regulated by the OCC, or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) if it is a member as determined by SBA.
(a)
(1) * * *
(ii) Any provisions in the contracts entered into by the parties, including SBA Forms 1086, 1088 and 1454;
(2) Knowingly submitting false or fraudulent information to the SBA or FTA; or
(3) A Lender's receipt, from its primary regulator, of a cease and desist order, a consent agreement affecting capital or commercial lending issues, a supervisory action citing unsafe or unsound banking practices or other items of concern to SBA and its potential risk to SBA through loan sales; or a going concern opinion issued by the Lender's auditor. A Lender subject to such action or opinion must notify the D/FA and the D/OCRM within five business days (or as soon as practicable thereafter) of the issuance of any such action or opinion, including providing copies of the relevant documents for review.
(c)
(d)
(c) * * * Other factors may include, but are not limited to review/examination assessments, historical performance measures, loan volume to the extent that it impacts performance measures, and other performance related measurements and information (such as contribution toward SBA mission).
(c) * * * Other factors may include, but are not limited to, review/examination assessments, historical performance measures, loan volume to the extent that it impacts performance measures, and other performance related measurements and information (such as contribution toward SBA mission).
(c) * * *
(5) No CDC Board member may serve on the Board of another CDC in accordance with § 120.851(b).
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) Have at least two individuals with commercial lending experience satisfactory to SBA; and
A CDC may apply to make a 504 loan for a Project outside its Area of Operations by submitting a request to the 504 loan processing center. The applicant CDC must demonstrate that it can adequately fulfill its 504 program responsibilities for the 504 loan, including proper servicing. In addition, the CDC must have satisfactory SBA performance, as determined by SBA in its discretion. The CDC's Risk Rating, among other factors, will be considered in determining satisfactory SBA performance. Other factors may include, but are not limited to, review/examination assessments, historical performance measures, loan volume to the extent that it impacts performance measures, and other performance related measurements and information (such as contribution toward SBA mission). The 504 loan processing center may approve the application if:
(c) * * * Other factors may include, but are not limited to review/examination assessments, historical performance measures, loan volume to the extent that it impacts performance measures, and other performance related measurements and information (such as contribution toward SBA mission);
(e) * * *
(3) Construction equipment (except for heavy duty construction equipment integral to the business' operations with a remaining useful life of a minimum of 10 years).
The revision reads as follows:
The revision reads as follows:
The revisions read as follows:
(a) Results of monitoring, including an SBA Lender's, Intermediary's or NTAP's Risk Rating;
(b)
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(b)
(1) In general:
(i) Where the costs that SBA incurs for a review, exam, or other lender oversight activity are specific to a particular Lender, SBA will charge that Lender a fee for the actual costs of conducting the review, exam, or other lender oversight activity; and
(ii) Where the costs that SBA incurs for the lender oversight activity are not sufficiently specific to a particular Lender, SBA will assess a fee based on each Lender's portion of the total dollar amount of SBA guarantees in SBA's total portfolio or in the relevant portfolio segment being reviewed or examined, to cover the costs of such activity.
(2) SBA may waive the assessment of this fee for all Lenders owing less than a threshold amount below which SBA determines that it is not cost effective to collect the fee.
(c) * * * For the examinations or reviews conducted under paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section, SBA will bill each Lender for the amount owed following completion of the examination, review or related activity. For monitoring conducted under paragraph (a)(3) of this section and the other lender oversight activity expenses incurred under paragraph (a)(4) of this section, SBA will bill each Lender for the amount owed on an annual basis. * * *
(d) * * * In addition, a Lender's failure to pay any of the fee components described in this section, or to pay interest, charges and penalties that have been charged, may result in a decision to suspend or revoke a participant's eligibility, limit a participant's delegated authority, or other remedy available under law.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(c) * * *
(3)
(e) * * *
(3) Apply to any federal court of competent jurisdiction for the court to take exclusive jurisdiction, without notice, of the CDC, and SBA shall be entitled to the appointment of a receiver of SBA's choosing to hold, administer, operate and/or liquidate the CDC; and to such injunctive or other equitable relief as may be appropriate. Without limiting the foregoing and with SBA's consent, the receiver may take possession of the portfolio of 504 loans and/or pending 504 loan applications, including for the purpose of carrying out an enforcement order under paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(6)
(b) * * *
(4)
(a) * * *
(4) Is in good standing with SBA (as the SBA determines), and is Satisfactory with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) if it is a national bank, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation if it is a bank not regulated by the OCC, the Financial Institutions Regulatory Authority, if it is a member, the National Credit Union Administration if it is a credit union, as determined by SBA; and
* * * In addition, in order to complete such sale, Seller must have the purchaser of its rights to the Pool Loan execute an allonge to the Seller's First Lien Position 504 Loan Pool Guarantee Agreement in form acceptable to SBA, acknowledging and accepting all terms of the Seller's First Lien Position 504 Loan Pool Guarantee Agreement, and deliver the executed original allonge and a copy of the corresponding First Lien Position 504 Loan Pool Guarantee Agreement to the CSA. All Pool Loan payments related to a Seller Receipt and Servicing Retention Amount proposed for sale will be withheld by the CSA pending SBA acknowledgement of receipt of all executed documents required to complete the transfer.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; announcement of a public MRB advisory committee meeting.
FMCSA announces a meeting of its Medical Review Board (MRB) on Monday and Tuesday, August 22-23, 2016. The MRB will make recommendations to the Agency on the disposition of comments from medical professionals and associations, as well as safety advocacy, labor, and industry groups, to the Agency's and the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) of March 10, 2016, on safety-sensitive rail and commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers with moderate to severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA). Additionally, the MRB will review its previously issued report on OSA from 2012 to determine whether the report should be updated based on any changes to medical standards and practice or the comments received at the listening sessions and to the docket. Meetings are open to the public for their entirety, and the public will be allowed to comment during the proceedings.
The meeting will be held on Monday and Tuesday, August 22-23, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (E.T.), at the FMCSA National Training Center, 1310 N. Courthouse Road, Arlington, VA, 6th floor. Copies of the task statement and an agenda for the entire meeting will be made available in advance of the meeting at
Ms. Shannon L. Watson, Senior Advisor to the Associate Administrator for Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Eran Segev at (617) 494-3174,
The MRB is composed of five medical experts who each serve 2-year terms. Section 4116 of SAFETEA-LU requires the Secretary of Transportation, with the advice of the MRB and the chief medical examiner, to establish, review, and revise “medical standards for operators of commercial motor vehicles that will ensure that the physical condition of operators of commercial motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely.” The MRB operates in accordance with FACA under the terms of its charter, filed November 25, 2015.
Oral comments from the public will be heard during the meeting, subject to the discretion of the Chairman. Members of the public may submit written comments on the topics to be considered during the meeting by Wednesday, August 17, to Federal Docket Management System (FDMC) Docket Number FMCSA-2008-0362 and FMCSA-2015-0419 for the MRB using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request an extension and revision to the approved forms and information collection for marketing orders covering various vegetable and specialty crops.
Comments on this notice are due by October 11, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this notice. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Internet:
Andrew Hatch, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Room 1406-S, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-6862; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Email:
Small businesses may request information on this notice by contacting Antoinette Carter, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Room 1406-S, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone (202) 720-2491; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Email:
Marketing Order 947 (Oregon/California potatoes) has been terminated since the last renewal period. Currently, the following marketing orders are suspended at the respective industry's request, meaning their handling regulations and most of their information collection requirements are not active: 953 (North Carolina/Virginia potatoes); and 993 (California dried prunes). The North Carolina/Virginia potato marketing order, 953, is currently suspended and the industry will determine whether to reactivate or permanently terminate its marketing order by March 1, 2017. All North Carolina/Virginia potato forms were deleted from the previously approved OMB package. The California dried prune industry maintains the committee and marketing order 993, which work in partnership with State programs. In addition, the import regulation for California dried prunes, as contained in 7 CFR 999.200—Regulation governing the importation of prunes—is indefinitely suspended, effective January 17, 2009 (
Marketing order regulations help ensure adequate supplies of high quality product and adequate returns to producers. Marketing orders are authorized under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (Act), as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674). The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to oversee the marketing order operations and issue regulations recommended by a committee of representatives from each commodity industry.
The information collection requirements in this request are essential to carry out the intent of the Act, to provide the respondents the type of service they request, and to administer the marketing orders. Under the Act, marketing orders may authorize: Production and marketing research, including paid advertising; volume regulations; reserves, including pools and producer allotments; container regulations; and quality control. Assessments are levied on handlers regulated under the marketing orders. Section 8e of the Act requires imports of 14 commodities to meet certain standards. Included among these commodities are some covered in this forms package; olives, potatoes, onions, tomatoes, walnuts, dates, dried prunes, and raisins.
USDA requires several forms to be filed to enable the administration of each marketing order. These include forms covering the selection process for industry members to serve on a marketing order's committee or board
Under Federal marketing orders, producers and handlers are nominated by their peers to serve as representatives on a committee or board which administers each program. Nominees must provide information on their qualifications to serve on the committee or board. Qualified nominees are then appointed by the Secretary. Formal rulemaking amendments must be approved in referenda conducted by USDA and the Secretary. For the purposes of this action, ballots are considered information collections and are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. If a marketing order is amended, handlers are asked to sign an agreement indicating their willingness to abide by the provisions of the amended marketing order.
Some forms are required to be filed with the committee or board. The marketing orders and their rules and regulations authorize the respective commodities' committees and boards, the agencies responsible for local administration of the marketing orders, to require handlers and producers to submit certain information. Much of the information is compiled in aggregate and provided to the respective industries to assist in marketing decisions. The committees and boards have developed forms as a means for persons to file required information relating to supplies, shipments, and dispositions of their respective commodities, and other information needed to effectively carry out the purpose of the Act and their respective orders, and these forms are utilized accordingly.
The forms covered under this information collection require respondents to provide the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the marketing orders, and use of these forms is necessary to fulfill the intent of the Act as expressed in the marketing orders' rules and regulations.
The information collected is used only by authorized employees of the committees and authorized representatives of the USDA, including AMS, Specialty Crops Program's regional and headquarters' staff. Authorized committee or board employees are the primary users of the information and AMS is the secondary user.
Comments should reference OMB No. 0581-0178 OMB Vegetable and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders, and be sent to the USDA in care of the Docket Clerk at the address above. All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
AMS 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.
A 60-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to the notice.
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice announces the national average value of donated foods or, where applicable, cash in lieu of donated foods, to be provided in school year 2017 (July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017) for each lunch served by schools participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and for each lunch and supper served by institutions participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP).
Polly Fairfield, Program Analyst, Policy Branch, Food Distribution Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302-1594, or telephone (703) 305-2680.
These programs are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Nos. 10.555 and 10.558 and are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR 415.9)
This notice imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping provisions that are subject to Office of Management and Budget review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act. This notice was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
This notice implements mandatory provisions of sections 6(c) and 17(h)(1)(B) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1755(c) and 1766(h)(1)(B)). Section 6(c)(1)(A) of the Act establishes the national average value of donated food assistance to be given to States for each lunch served in the NSLP at 11.00 cents per meal. Pursuant to section 6(c)(1)(B), this amount is subject to annual adjustments on July 1 of each year to reflect changes in a three-month
The Price Index is computed using five major food components in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Index (cereal and bakery products; meats, poultry and fish; dairy; processed fruits and vegetables; and fats and oils). Each component is weighted using the relative weight as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The value of food assistance is adjusted each July 1 by the annual percentage change in a three-month average value of the Price Index for March, April, and May each year. The three-month average of the Price Index decreased by 3.55 percent from 209.20 for March, April, and May of 2015, as previously published in the
Sections 6(c)(1)(A) and (B), 6(e)(1), and 17(h)(1)(B) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1755(c)(1)(A) and (B) and (e)(1), and 1766(h)(1)(B)).
White Mountain National Forest, USDA Forest Service.
Notice.
The White Mountain National Forest proposes to add Zealand Picnic Area to the Recreation Fee Program. The White Mountain Pass, which covers 27 day use sites on the Forest, will also cover Zealand Picnic Area in the pass. Fees are determined based on the level of amenities and services provided, cost of operation, maintenance, and market assessment. Funds from fees will be used for the continued operation and maintenance of the sites.
National recreation passes such as the Interagency Annual Pass, Senior Pass, Access Pass, or White Mountain National Forest Annual Pass would be valid for day use fees at these sites.
Comments on the proposal will be accepted through October 11, 2016. Fees for Zealand Picnic Area will go into effect spring of 2017 pending a recommendation from the Eastern Region Recreation Resource Advisory Committee (RRAC).
Forest Supervisor, White Mountain National Forest, 71 White Mountain Drive, Campton, NH 03223.
Marianne Leberman, Recreation & Wilderness Program Leader (603) 536-6236. Information about the proposed fee changes can also be found on the White Mountain National Forest Web site:
The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee (Committee) will meet in South Lake Tahoe, CA. The Committee is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972. Additional information concerning the Committee, including meeting summary/minutes, can be found by visiting the Committee's Web site at:
The meeting will be held on August 26, 2016, from 10:00 to 12:00 p.m. All meetings are subject to cancellation. For updated status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Emerald Bay Conference Room, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, California. Written comments may be submitted as described under
Karen Kuentz, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Forest Service, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, California 96150, by phone at 530-543-2774, or by email at
The purpose of this meeting is to provide:
The meeting is open to the public. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before the meeting. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing by June 2, 2016. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be
Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice and opportunity for public comment.
Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The amended application to expand FTZ 225 under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone, and to an ASF sunset provision for magnet sites that would terminate authority for Site 4 if not activated within five years from the month of approval.
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application to expand FTZ 149—Site 1 under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone.
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application to reorganize FTZ 103 under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to construction activities as part of waterfront improvement projects at several berths. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting public comment on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the Navy to incidentally take marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, during the specified activity at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (the Shipyard) in Kittery, Maine.
Comments and information must be received no later than September 8, 2016.
Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, and electronic comments should be sent to
Rob Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
An electronic copy of the Navy's application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained by visiting the Internet at:
The Navy has prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].
On Wednesday February 17, 2016, NMFS received an application from the Navy for the taking of marine mammals incidental to Waterfront Improvement Projects. NMFS determined that the application was adequate and complete on April 1, 2016. The Navy is proposing to restore and modernize waterfront infrastructure associated with Dry Docks 1 and 3 at the Shipyard in Kittery, York County, Maine. The proposed action would include two waterfront improvement projects, structural repairs to Berths 11, 12, and 13, and replacement of the Dry Dock 3 caisson. The waterfront improvement projects would be constructed between October 2016 and October 2022, with in-water work expected to begin no earlier than January 2017. The requested IHA would run from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017.
The use of vibratory and impact pile driving for pile installation and removal as well as drilling is expected to produce underwater sound at levels that have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals. The term “pile driving” throughout this document shall include vibratory driving, impact pile driving, vibratory pile extraction as well as pile drilling unless unless specified otherwise. Species with the potential to be present during the project timeframe include harbor porpoise (
The U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) is proposing to restore and modernize waterfront infrastructure associated with Dry Docks 1 and 3 at the Shipyard in Kittery, York County, Maine (See Figure 1-1 in the Application). The proposed action would include two waterfront improvement projects, structural repairs to Berths 11, 12, and 13 and replacement of the Dry Dock 3 caisson.
The purpose of the proposed action is to modernize and maximize dry dock capabilities for performing current and future missions efficiently and with maximum flexibility. The need for the proposed action is to correct deficiencies associated with the pier structure at Berths 11, 12, and 13 and the Dry Dock 3 caisson and concrete seats and ensure that the Shipyard can continue to support its primary mission to service, maintain, and overhaul submarines. By supporting the Shipyard's mission, the proposed action would assist in meeting the larger need for the Navy to provide capabilities for training and equipping combat-capable naval forces ready to deploy worldwide. Proposed activities included as part of the Waterfront Improvement Projects with potential to affect marine mammals within the waterways adjacent to the Shipyard include vibratory and impact pile driving as well as pile drilling operations in the project area.
In-water construction associated with the Proposed Action would occur in phases over a six-year construction period. In-water construction is scheduled to begin in January 2017 and be completed by October 2022. This application is for the first year of in-water construction, from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. No seasonal limitations would be imposed on the construction timeline. Construction schedules for in-water work at Berth 11 are under development and subject to change based on operational
Table 1 summarizes the in-water construction activities including pile extraction, driving, and drilling, scheduled to take place during the timeframe covered by this IHA application. Note that pile driving days are not necessarily consecutive. Also note that certain activities may occur at the same time, decreasing the total number of pile driving days, thus making the total days described below a conservative estimate. Total driving time will be approximately 72 days which includes the installation of 327 piles and removal of 141 piles.
The Shipyard is located along the Piscataqua River in Kittery, Maine. The Shipyard occupies the whole of Seavey Island, encompassing 278 acres on what were originally five separate islands (Seavey, Pumpkin, Dennett's, Clarks, and Jamaica). Over the past 200 years, as a result of expansion from land-making activity, four of these islands (Seavey, Pumpkin, Dennett's, and Jamaica) were consolidated into one large island, which kept the name Seavey Island. Clarks Island is now attached to Seavey Island by a causeway. Seavey Island is located in the lower Piscataqua River approximately 547 yards from its southwest bank, 219 yards from its north bank, and approximately 2.5 miles from the mouth of the river.
The Navy's application focuses primarily on the in-water construction activities that will occur during the first year of construction, including completion of the king pile and concrete shutter panel bulkhead at Berth 11. Additional applications will be submitted for each subsequent year of in-water construction at Berths 11, 12, and 13 as well as for the replacement of the Dry Dock 3 caisson.
Piles of differing sizes will be utilized during construction activities including 25-inch steel sheet piles driven by vibratory hammer at Berth 11; 14-inch steel H-type piles driven using impact hammer at Berth 11; 15-inch timber piles installed via vibratory hammer to reconstruct dolphins at the corner of Berth 11; and 36-inch steel H-type piles at Berth 11. Additionally 14-inch steel H-type piles would be used to align and construct the trestle that would be extracted using vibratory hammer at Berth 11 and 15-inch timber fender piles, which would be extracted using a vibratory hammer at Berth 11 and the timber dolphin at the corners of Berths 11 and 12.
The number of piles that can be driven per day varies for different project elements and is subject to change based on site conditions at the time. At the beginning of the in-water work, existing timber piles would be removed from the berth faces and the timber dolphin at the western end of the berth, and the contractor either would construct a temporary construction trestle or place a jack-up barge alongside the berths to provide additional construction workspace. Pile driving and extraction would also be needed to construct and disassemble the temporary construction trestle if the construction contractor selects this method over use of a jack-up barge, which would require no pile driving. The trestle system has been included in this analysis in order to model a conservative, worst-case scenario. If a jack-up barge is used instead of a trestle system, less pile driving will be needed, resulting in fewer marine mammal takes than predicted in this application.
For the proposed king pile and concrete shutter panel bulkhead (see Figures 2-1 and 2-2 in Application), the contractor would likely create templates and work in increments along the berth from the trestle or jack-up barge. For example, an approximately 50-foot-long template would allow installation of about 10 king piles and 20 sheet piles (along segments of the berths where sheet piles would be installed). The work would consist of setting a template (including temporary piles and horizontal members), which might take one or two days. Then the contractor
The concrete shutter panels would then be installed in stacks between the king piles along most of the length of Berth 11. Installation of the concrete piles is not included in the noise analysis because no pile driving would be required. Along an approximately 16-foot section at the eastern end of Berth 11A and an additional 101 feet between Berths 11A and 11B, the depth to bedrock is greater, thus allowing a conventional sheet-pile bulkhead to be constructed. The steel sheet-piles would be driven to bedrock using a vibratory hammer. Sheet piles installed with a vibratory hammer also would be used to construct “returns,” which would be shorter bulkheads connecting the new bulkheads to the existing bulkhead under the pier. Installation of the sheeting with a vibratory hammer is estimated to take less than one hour per pair of sheets. The contractor would probably install two sheets at a time and so the time required install the sheeting (10 pairs = 20 sheets) using vibratory hammers would only be about 8 hours per 10 pairs of sheets. Time requirements for all other pile types were estimated based on information compiled from ICF Jones and Strokes and Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. (2012).
If sufficient construction funds are available, the Navy may install a king pile and concrete shutter panel bulkhead at Berth 11C as part of Phase 1. The bulkhead would extend from the western end of Berth 11B to the southern end of Berth 12. The in-water construction process would be the same as the process described above. The analysis in this application includes construction at Berth 11C. Once the Berth 11 bulkheads are complete, the timber dolphins at the western end of the berth would be replaced with a similar dolphin constructed of approximately seven piles.
Additional in-water work would be required to install steel H-type sister piles at the location of the inboard portal crane rail beam at Berth 11, including Berth 11C. The sister piles would provide additional support for the portal crane rail system and restore its load-bearing capacity. The sister piles would be driven into the bedrock below the pier, in water generally less than 10 feet deep, using an impact hammer. The timing of this work depends on operational schedules at the berths. The sister piles may be installed either before or after the bulkheads are constructed.
Five marine mammal species, including one cetacean and four pinnipeds, may inhabit or transit the waters near the Shipyard in the lower Piscataqua River during the specified activity. These include the harbor porpoise (
We have reviewed the Navy's detailed species descriptions, including life history information, for accuracy and completeness and refer the reader to Section 3 of the Navy's Application instead of reprinting the information here. Please also refer to NMFS' Web site (
Harbor porpoises are found commonly in coastal and offshore waters of both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. In the western North Atlantic, the species is found in both U.S. and Canadian waters. More specifically, the species can be found between West Greenland and Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (NOAA Fisheries Service
Line-transect surveys have been conducted in the Gulf of Maine between 1991 and 2011. Based on the 2011 aerial surveys, the best abundance estimate for the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock of harbor porpoise is 79,883 animals (CV = 0.32). The aerial surveys included central Virginia to the lower Bay of Fundy. The minimum population estimate is 61,415 animals (Waring
Gray seals, which are members of the “true seal” family (
There are currently no population estimates for the western North Atlantic gray seal stock (Waring
Harbor seals are also members of the true seal family (
An aerial abundance survey was conducted in 2012 during the pupping season along the entire Maine coast. As a result of this survey, the best estimate of abundance for the western North Atlantic stock of harbor seal was 70,142 animals. The minimum population was estimated as 55,409 animals (also based on the 2012 aerial abundance survey). No trend analysis has been conducted for this species, likely because of the long interval between the 2012 survey and the previous 2001 survey and the somewhat imprecise abundance estimates that were generated from them. In the Piscataqua River, harbor seals are the most abundant pinniped species (Smith n.d.).
Hooded seals are also members of the true seal family (
Population abundance of hooded seals in the western North Atlantic is derived from pup production estimates. These estimates are developed from whelping pack surveys. The most recent population estimate in the western North Atlantic was derived in 2005. There have been no recent surveys conducted or population estimates developed for this species. The 2005 best population estimate for hooded seals is 592,100 individuals, with a minimum population estimate of 512,000 individuals (Waring
Harp seals are also members of the true seal family and classified into three stocks, which coincide with specific pupping sites on pack ice, as follows: (1) Eastern Canada, including the areas off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador and the area near the Magdalen Islands in the Gulf of St. Lawrence; (2) the West Ice off eastern Greenland, and (3) the ice in the White Sea off the coast of Russia (Waring
Population abundance of harp seals in the western North Atlantic is derived from aerial surveys and mark-recapture (Waring
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that stressors, (
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance between two peaks of a sound wave; lower frequency sounds have longer wavelengths than higher frequency sounds and attenuate (decrease) more rapidly in shallower water. Amplitude is the height of the sound pressure wave or the ‘loudness’ of a sound and is typically measured using the decibel (dB) scale. A dB is the ratio between a measured pressure (with sound) and a reference pressure (sound at a constant pressure, established by scientific standards). It is a logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude; therefore, relatively small changes in dB ratings correspond to large changes in sound pressure. When referring to sound pressure levels (SPLs; the sound force per unit area), sound is referenced in the context of underwater sound pressure to 1 microPascal (μPa). One pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of one newton exerted over an area of one square meter. The source level (SL) represents the sound level at a distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1 μPa). The received level is the sound level at the listener's position. Note that all underwater sound levels in this document are referenced to a pressure of 1 μPa and all airborne sound levels in this document are referenced to a pressure of 20 μPa.
Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the duration of an impulse. Rms is calculated by squaring all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of the average (Urick, 1983). Rms accounts for both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed through averaged units than by peak pressures.
When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in all directions away from the source (similar to ripples on the surface of a pond), except in cases where the source is directional. The compressions and decompressions associated with sound waves are detected as changes in pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as hydrophones.
Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a single source or point (Richardson
•
•
•
•
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at any given location and time—which comprise “ambient” or “background” sound—depends not only on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson
In the vicinity of the Project area, the average broadband ambient underwater noise levels are commonly 52.8 to 80.5 dB SEL re 1μPa with substantially higher maximum peak readings (79.9 to 103.9 L
There are two general categories of sound types: Impulse and non-pulse. Vibratory pile driving is considered to be continuous or non-pulsed while impact pile driving is considered to be an impulse or pulsed sound type. The distinction between these two sound types is important because they have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing (
Pulsed sound sources (
Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses (
Impact hammers operate by repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by impact hammers is characterized by rapid rise times and high peak levels, a potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper, 2005). Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the weight of the hammer to push them into the sediment. Vibratory hammers produce significantly less sound than impact hammers. Peak SPLs may be 180 dB or greater, but are generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs generated during impact pile driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman
The likely or possible impacts of the proposed project on marine mammals could involve both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. Potential non-acoustic stressors could result from the physical presence of the equipment and personnel. Any impacts to marine mammals, however, are expected to primarily be acoustic in nature.
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals, and exposure to sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess these potential effects, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
•
•
• High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and members of the genera
•
The single cetacean species likely to occur in the proposed project area and for which take is requested, is classified as a high-frequency cetacean (
The substrate and depth of the habitat affect the sound propagation properties of the environment. Shallow environments are typically more structurally complex, which leads to rapid sound attenuation. In addition, substrates that are soft (
In the absence of mitigation, impacts to marine species would be expected to result from physiological and behavioral responses to both the type and strength of the acoustic signature (Viada
Given the available data, the received level of a single pulse (with no frequency weighting) might need to be approximately 186 dB re 1 μPa
The above TTS information for odontocetes is derived from studies on the bottlenose dolphin (
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals, based on anatomical similarities. PTS might occur at a received sound level at least several decibels above that inducing mild TTS if the animal were exposed to strong sound pulses with rapid rise time. Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary assumption is that the PTS threshold for impulse sounds (such as pile driving pulses as received close to the source) is at least 6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis and probably greater than 6 dB (Southall
Although no marine mammals have been shown to experience TTS or PTS as a result of being exposed to pile driving activities, captive bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales exhibited changes in behavior when exposed to strong pulsed sounds (Finneran
Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle changes in behavior, more conspicuous changes in activities, and displacement. Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and reactions, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day, and many other factors (Richardson
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok
Controlled experiments with captive marine mammals showed pronounced behavioral reactions, including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway
With both types of pile driving, it is likely that the onset of pile driving
The biological significance of many of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral modification could be expected to be biologically significant if the change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Significant behavioral modifications that could potentially lead to effects on growth, survival, or reproduction include:
• Drastic changes in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those thought to cause beaked whale stranding due to exposure to military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
• Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic environment; and
• Cessation of feeding or social interaction.
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound depends on both external factors (characteristics of sound sources and their paths) and the specific characteristics of the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is difficult to predict (Southall
Natural and artificial sounds can disrupt behavior by masking, or interfering with, a marine mammal's ability to hear other sounds. Masking occurs when the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another coincident sound at similar frequencies and at similar or higher levels. Chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-intensity, sound could cause masking at particular frequencies for marine mammals that utilize sound for vital biological functions. Masking can interfere with detection of acoustic signals such as communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental sounds important to marine mammals. Therefore, under certain circumstances, marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment are being severely masked could also be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in survival and reproduction. If the coincident (masking) sound were anthropogenic, it could be potentially harassing if it disrupted hearing-related behavior. It is important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which occurs only during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not considered a physiological effect, but rather a potential behavioral effect.
Masking occurs at the frequency band which the animals utilize so the frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in determining any potential behavioral impacts. Because sound generated from in-water vibratory pile driving is mostly concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have less effect on high frequency echolocation sounds made by porpoises. However, lower frequency man-made sounds are more likely to affect detection of communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as surf and prey sound. It may also affect communication signals when they occur near the sound band and thus reduce the communication space of animals (
Masking affects both senders and receivers of the signals and can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent research suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, and that most of these increases are from distant shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, such as those from vessel traffic, pile driving, and dredging activities, contribute to the elevated ambient sound levels, thus intensifying masking.
The most intense underwater sounds in the proposed action are those produced by impact pile driving. Given that the energy distribution of pile driving covers a broad frequency spectrum, sound from these sources would likely be within the audible range of marine mammals present in the project area. Impact pile driving activity is relatively short-term, with rapid pulses occurring for approximately fifteen minutes per pile. The probability for impact pile driving resulting from this proposed action masking acoustic signals important to the behavior and survival of marine mammal species is likely to be negligible. Vibratory pile driving is also relatively short-term, with rapid oscillations occurring for approximately one and a half hours per pile. It is possible that vibratory pile driving resulting from this proposed action may mask acoustic signals important to the behavior and survival of marine mammal species, but the short-term duration and limited affected area would result in insignificant impacts from masking. Any masking event that could possibly rise to Level B harassment under the MMPA would occur concurrently within the zones of behavioral harassment already estimated for vibratory and impact pile driving, and which have already been taken into account in the exposure analysis.
Marine mammals that occur in the project area could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with pile driving that have the potential to cause harassment, depending on their distance from pile driving activities. Airborne pile driving sound would not impact cetaceans because sound from atmospheric sources does not transmit well underwater (Richardson
Besides being susceptible to vessel strikes, cetacean and pinniped responses to vessels may result in behavioral changes, including greater variability in the dive, surfacing, and respiration patterns; changes in vocalizations; and changes in swimming speed or direction (NRC 2003). There
The proposed activities at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard would not result in permanent impacts to habitats used directly by marine mammals, but may have potential short-term impacts to food sources such as forage fish and may affect acoustic habitat (see masking discussion above). There are no known foraging hotspots or other ocean bottom structure of significant biological importance to marine mammals present in the marine waters of the project area. Therefore, the main impact issue associated with the proposed activity would be temporarily elevated sound levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals, as discussed previously in this document. The most likely impact to marine mammal habitat would be the effect of pile driving on likely marine mammal prey (
Construction activities may produce both pulsed (
During the course of the proposed project, various activities are expected to disturb the sediment. These activities include pile driving, dredging, and filling. In order to minimize the amount of debris, sediment, and silt escaping when backfilling the Berth 11 bulkhead, the Navy will install geotextile fabric against the interior of the bulkhead to catch debris, sediment, and silt forced through seams in the bulkhead when the backfill is compacted. In addition, a temporary silt curtain and boom would be installed outside of Berth 11, approximately 18 feet off the berth, during backfilling to catch additional debris, sediment, and silt that escapes the bulkhead.
Pile driving and dredging activities may re-suspend disturbed sediment and result in turbid conditions within the immediate project area. Suspended sediments may be transported and re-deposited downstream of the prevailing currents, which could increase siltation in the vicinity of the Shipyard. Resulting sedimentation is also expected to be localized and temporary. Since the currents are so strong in the area, suspended sediments in the water column should dissipate and quickly return to background levels. Following the completion of sediment-disturbing activities, the turbidity levels within the temporary offshore workspace are expected to return to normal ambient levels following the end of construction in all construction scenarios. Turbidity within the water column has the potential to reduce the level of oxygen in the water and irritate the gills of cetacean or pinniped prey fish species in the project area. However, turbidity plumes associated with the project would be temporary and localized, and fish in the project area would be able to move away from and avoid the areas where plumes may occur. Therefore, it is expected that the impacts on prey fish species from turbidity, and therefore on marine mammals, would be minimal and temporary. In general, the area likely impacted by the project is relatively small compared to the available habitat in Great Bay Estuary. As a result, activity at the project site would be inconsequential in terms of its effects on marine mammal foraging.
In summary, given the short daily duration of sound associated with individual pile driving events and the relatively small areas being affected, pile driving activities associated with the proposed action are not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on any fish habitat, populations of fish species or marine mammal foraging habitat at the project area. Furthermore, any impacts to marine mammal habitat that may occur are not expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, “and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking” for certain subsistence uses. NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, their habitat. 50 CFR 216.104(a)(11). For the proposed project, the Navy worked with NMFS and proposed the following mitigation measures to minimize the potential impacts to marine mammals in the project vicinity. The primary purposes of these mitigation measures are to minimize sound levels from the activities, and to monitor marine mammals within designated zones of influence corresponding to NMFS' current Level A and B harassment thresholds which are depicted in Table 9 found later in the
In addition to the measures described later in this section, the Navy would employ the following standard mitigation measures:
During all in-water construction or demolition activities having the potential to affect marine mammals, a shutdown zone of 10 m will be implemented to ensure marine mammals are not present within this zone. These activities could include, but are not limited to: (1) Pile driving and removal and the the removal of a pile from the water column/substrate via a crane (
All shutdown and disturbance zones will initially be based on the distances from the source that were predicted for each threshold level.
•
• A minimum of two marine mammal observers (MMOs) will be in place during all pile-driving/removal operations. MMOs designated by the contractor will be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable by calling for the shutdown to equipment operators. The MMOs shall have no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring and will be trained on the observation zones, species identification, how to observe, and how to fill out the data sheets by the Navy Natural Resources Manager prior to any pile driving activities.
• The Navy shall conduct a pre-construction briefing with the contractor. During the briefing, all contractor personnel working in the Project area will watch the Navy's Marine Species Awareness Training video. An informal guide will be included with the monitoring plan to aid in identifying species if they are observed in the vicinity of the Project area.
• Prior to the start of pile driving/removal activity, the shutdown and safety zones will be monitored for 15 minutes to ensure that they are clear of marine mammals. Pile driving will only commence once observers have declared the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals; animals will be allowed to remain in the disturbance zone and their behavior will be monitored and documented.
• In the unlikely event of conditions that prevent the visual detection of marine mammals, such as heavy fog, activities with the potential to result in Level A or Level B harassment will not be initiated. Pile driving would be curtailed, but vibratory pile driving or extraction would be allowed to continue if such conditions arise after the activity has begun.
• The waters will continue to be scanned for at least 30 minutes after pile driving has completed each day.
NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of affecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:
• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;
• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current
1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received levels of pile driving, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to received levels of pile driving, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to received levels of pile driving, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.
6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation—an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, our preliminarily determination is that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. The Navy submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA application. It can be found in Section 13 of the application.
Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or more of the following general goals:
1. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;
2. An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are likely to be exposed to levels of pile driving that we associate with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, TTS, or PTS;
3. An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond to stimuli expected to result in take and how anticipated adverse effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the following methods:
Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);
Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);
Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;
4. An increased knowledge of the affected species; and
5. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain mitigation and monitoring measures.
The Navy will implement in situ acoustic monitoring efforts to measure SPL from in-water construction activities. The Navy will collect and evaluate acoustic sound record levels for 10 percent of the pile-driving activities conducted, sufficient to confirm measured contours associated with the acoustic ZOIs. Acoustic sound recordings will be collected sufficient to document sound source levels for 10 percent of the proposed piles to be driven and extracted. The Navy will conduct acoustic monitoring at the source (33 feet) and, where the potential for Level A harassment exists, at a second representative monitoring location at an intermediate distance between the cetacean and pinniped shutdown zones. In conjunction with measurements of SPLs at the source and shutdown monitoring locations, there will also be intermittent verification for impact driving or pile driving and extraction to determine the actual distance to either the 120 dB re 1μPa rms isopleth or the point at which the SPL (maximum rms) from the equipment diminishes to the median ambient SPL (rms) and hence becomes indistinguishable. Acoustic measurements will continue during subsequent years of in-water construction for the Project.
The Navy will collect sighting data and behavioral responses to construction for marine mammal species observed in the region of activity during the period of construction. All observers will be trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors. NOAA Fisheries Service requires that the observers have no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring.
The Navy will monitor the shutdown zone and safety zone before, during, and after pile driving activities. Based on NOAA Fisheries Service requirements, the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan would include the following procedures:
• MMOs will be primarily located on boats, docks, and piers at the best vantage point(s) in order to properly see the entire shut down zone(s);
• MMOs will be located at the best vantage point(s) to observe the zone associated with behavioral impact thresholds;
• During all observation periods, observers will use binoculars and the naked eye to search continuously for marine mammals;
• Monitoring distances will be measured with range finders;
• Distances to animals will be based on the best estimate of the MMO, relative to known distances to objects in the vicinity of the MMO;
• Bearing to animals will be determined using a compass; and
• Pile driving activities will be curtailed under conditions of fog or poor visibility that might obscure the presence of a marine mammal within the shutdown zone;
Monitoring of the shutdown and disturbance zones will continue for 30 minutes following the completion of the activity.
MMOs will use NMFS' approved data forms. Among other pieces of information, the Navy will record detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any. At a minimum, the following information would be collected on the sighting forms:
• Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
• Construction activities occurring during each observation period;
• Weather parameters (
• Water conditions (
• Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals;
• Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile driving activity;
• Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
• Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
• Other human activity in the area.
The Navy would provide NMFS with a draft monitoring report within 60 days prior to any subsequent authorization, whichever is sooner. A monitoring report is required before another authorization can be issued to the Navy. This report will detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft final report will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments. The report should include data and information listed in Section 13.3 of the application.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such as an injury, serious injury or mortality (
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Name and type of vessel involved;
• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Water depth;
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with the Navy to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The Navy would not be able to resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that the Navy discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead MMO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
In the event that the Navy discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead MMO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].”
All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment resulting from pile driving and are likely to involve temporary changes in behavior. Physical injury or lethal takes are not expected due to the expected source levels and sound source characteristics associated with the activity, and the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to further minimize the possibility of such take.
Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of sound on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many animals are likely to be present within a particular distance of a given activity, or exposed to a particular level of sound, where NMFS believes take is likely.
The Navy has requested authorization for the incidental taking of small numbers of harbor porpoise, harbor seal, gray seal, hooded seal and harp seal that may result from vibratory and impact pile driving and removal during activities associated with the waterfront improvement project.
In order to estimate the potential incidents of take that may occur incidental to the specified activity, we must first estimate the extent of the sound field that may be produced by the activity and then consider in combination with information about marine mammal density or abundance in the project area. We first provide information on applicable sound thresholds for determining effects to marine mammals before describing the
We use generic sound exposure thresholds to determine when an activity that produces sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal such that a take by harassment might occur. To date, no studies have been conducted that explicitly examine impacts to marine mammals from pile driving sounds or from which empirical sound thresholds have been established. These thresholds (Table 4) are used to estimate when harassment may occur (
Underwater Sound Propagation Formula—Pile driving generates underwater noise that can potentially result in disturbance to marine mammals in the project area. Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or absence of reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water structures and sediments.
Cylindrical spreading occurs in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source. The formula for practical spreading transmission loss is TL = 10 log10 (R/10), where R is the distance from the source assuming the near source levels are measured at 10 meters (33 feet). This transmission loss model was used for piles being driven in a water depth less than approximately 3 meters (10 feet). Specifically, the model was used for the 14-inch H-type (sister) piles that would be driven using an impact hammer at Rail Beam 1 at Berth 11,12, and 13.
A practical spreading value of fifteen is often used in the absence of reliable data and under conditions where water increases with depth as the receiver moves away from the shoreline, resulting in an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions. Practical spreading loss (4.5 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance) was used in water depths ranging from 3 meters to 15 meters which is the greatest depth at which pile driving activities will take place for this project. The formula for cylindrical spreading transmission loss is TL = 15 log10 (R/10), where R is the distance from the source assuming the near source levels are measured at 10 meters (33 feet).
This transmission loss model was used for the piles being driven (or drilled) in water depths of between approximately 10 and 50 feet. These pile types and sizes included:
• 25-inch steel sheet piles, which would be driven using a vibratory hammer at Berth 11.
• 14-inch steel H-type piles, which would be driven using an impact hammer at Berth 11during trestle alignment and construction.
• 15-inch timber piles, which would be installed using a vibratory hammer to reconstruct timber dolphins at the corner of Berths 11 and 12.
• 36-inch steel H-type (king) piles at Berth 11 which would be drilled and rock-socketed into the bedrock.
This model was also used for piles extracted in water depths of 10 to 50 feet and included:
• 14-inch steel H-type piles, which would be used to align and construct the trestle that would be extracted using a vibratory hammer at Berth 11.
• 15-inch timber fender piles, which would be extracted using a vibratory hammer at Berth 11 and the timber dolphin at the corners of Berths 11 and 12.
Source levels for the two pile driving methods that are proposed for use during the project were obtained from the “Compendium of Pile Driving Sound Data,” which is included as Appendix I to “Technical Guidance for Assessment and Mitigation of the Hydroacoustic Effects of Pile Driving on Fish” (ICF Jones & Stokes and Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 2012). The information presented in the compendium is a compilation of sound pressure levels recorded during various in-water pile driving projects in California, Oregon, Washington, and Nebraska. The compendium is a commonly used reference document for pile driving source levels when analyzing impacts on protected species, including marine mammals, from pile driving activities.
Source levels were collected for the four types of piles that would be installed and two pile driving methods proposed for the project:
• 14-inch steel H-type piles will be used as sister piles to align and construct the trestle; installed via impact hammer.
• 15-inch timber piles will be used for re-installation of dolphins and installed via vibratory hammer.
• 25-inch steel sheet piles will be used for the bulkhead at Berth 11 and installed via vibratory hammer.
Reference source levels for the Project were determined using data for piles of similar sizes, the same pile driving method as that proposed for the Project, and at similar water depths. While the
The exact source level for a given pile and pile driving method largely depends not only on the pile size and water depth but also on site-specific conditions such as environmental and physical factors, including water temperature and sediment composition. Therefore, in this analysis, several source levels for each pile type and associated pile driving method were averaged when multiple levels were available. These averaged source levels were used as inputs to determine transmission loss, which, in turn, was used in the propagation models described above.
Drilling is considered an intermittent, non-impulsive noise source, similar to vibratory pile driving. Very little information is available regarding source levels of in-water drilling activities associated with nearshore pile installation such as that proposed for the Berths 11, 12, and 13 structural repairs project. Dazey
IHA applications for other construction projects have reported that, due to a lack of information regarding pile drilling source levels, it is generally assumed that pile drilling would produce less in-water noise than both impact and vibratory pile driving. Based on the general lack of information about these activities and the assumption that in-water noise from pile drilling would be less than either impact or vibratory pile driving, it is assumed that the
Vibratory pile extraction is considered an intermittent, non-impulsive noise source. Little information is available specific to vibratory extraction for most types of piles. The source level for timber-pile extraction was obtained from “Port Townsend Test Pile Project: Underwater Noise Monitoring Draft Final Report,” prepared by Jim Loughlin for the Washington State Department of Transportation Office of Air Quality and Noise (WSDOT 2010) and is shown in Table 8.
Source levels for vibratory extraction of H-type piles were obtained from “Underwater Acoustic Measurements of Vibratory Pile Driving at the Pipeline 5 Crossing in the Snohomish River, Everett, Washington,” prepared by Greeneridge Science, Inc., for the City of Everett (Burgess
For vibratory pile extraction of the 24-inch steel sheet piles (used as a proxy for the 20-inch steel sheet piles that would be extracted at the circular, cellular cofferdam), the average value for the vibratory installation source levels from Table 6 was used. Sources including ICF Jones & Stokes and Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. (2012) report the same values for vibratory installation and extraction, assuming that the two activities would produce similar source levels if water depth, pile size, and equipment remain constant.
Reference source levels for the project were determined using data for piles of similar size, the same extraction method as that proposed for the project, and at similar water depths. While the pile sizes and water depths chosen as proxies do not exactly match those for the project, they are the closest matches available, and it is assumed that the source levels shown in Table 8 and are representative of the vibratory pile extraction method used for the project.
Attenuation distances to the NOAA Fisheries thresholds for Level B takes for pile driving are described in Table 9. These attenuation distances have been developed using the propagation models described above. Modeling was performed for each driving, drilling, installing, and removing activity described above using the depth-appropriate model. Activities that would result in the longest attenuation distances were selected as the worst-case sound exposure distances that would determine the ZOI for each project location.
During vibratory hammer operation modeled sound would attenuate to 120 dB at approximately 4.57 miles from the Berth 11 Structural Repairs Project. During operation of the impact hammer, modeled sound would attenuate to 160 dB at approximately 0.98 miles from the Berths 11 Structural Repairs Project site. Note that these attenuation distances are based on sound characteristics in open water. The Project area is located in a river surrounded by topographic features and not in open water; therefore, given the numerous land features and islands within the vicinity of the Project sites in the Piscataqua River, these attenuation distances are extremely conservative.
No Level A takes are expected because attenuation out to the pinniped injury threshold of 190 dB rms is calculated at 5 feet (1.58 meters), and attenuation out to the 180 dB RMS injury threshold for cetaceans is calculated at 52 feet (15.8 meters). These very small areas can easily be monitored for marine mammals, and mitigative measures would be implemented to ensure that no Level A takes occur.
The ZOIs for each of the two separate sound sources (impact driving and vibratory driving/drilling) at Berth 11 are shown on Figure 6-1 in the application. Work would occur in phases over several years. All of the construction-related in-water sound occurring within the waters of these ZOIs would exceed the designated NOAA Fisheries thresholds for behavioral take. The ZOIs were used to calculate potential takes from each sound source and would be monitored during in-water work at Berth 11 to estimate actual harassment takes of marine mammals. The total area ensonified by these two sources is 0.36 square miles (mi
The numerous topographic features present in and along the Piscataqua River would greatly limit the area that would be impacted from in-water sound. Sound from either source would be truncated with minimal attenuation. Due to the numerous islands and other land features at and around the site, the actual ZOIs for both the vibratory hammer and impact hammer are identical even though the calculated ZOIs are different. This is illustrated in Figure 6-1 in the Application.
No sound is expected to fully attenuate to the 120-decibel threshold for vibratory pile driving because topographic features (
Airborne transmission loss was calculated using the spherical spreading model above. Using this model, the greatest possible distances to airborne harassment thresholds were estimated, using a source level of 111 dB 20 μPa rms for 24″ round steel piles, as 552.5 ft (168.3 m) to the 90 dB threshold for harbor seals and 174.5 ft (53.2 m) to the 100 dB threshold for all other seals. Other types of pile driving and extraction that would occur during the project would generate lower airborne sound pressures, with smaller distances and areas of potential disturbance, and for that reason are not considered further in this application. Since protective measures are in place out to the distances calculated for the underwater Level B thresholds, the distances for the airborne thresholds will be effectively covered by monitoring. The closest known haul-out site for seals within the Piscataqua River is 1.5 miles (2414 m) downstream of the Project area while the attenuation distance to the 90 dB threshold is 0.108 miles (174.5 m) and the 100 dB threshold is 0.033 miles (53.2 m). While there are no documented haul-outs, animals do occasionally haul-out on nearby rocks/jetties and could be flushed into the water. However, it is assumed that any hauled out animals within the disturbance zone will also enter the water and be exposed to underwater noise. Therefore, acoustic disturbance to pinniped resulting from airborne sound from pile driving and drilling are not considered further in this application.
The take calculations presented here relied on the best data currently available for marine mammal populations within close proximity to the Piscataqua River. There are not population data for any marine mammal species specifically within the Piscataqua River; however, the population data used are from the most recent NMFS Stock Assessment Reports (SAR) for the Atlantic Ocean. The most recent SAR population number was used for each species. The specific SAR used is discussed within each species take calculation in Sections 6.6.1 through 6.6.5 of the application. The formula was developed for calculating take due to pile driving, extraction, and drilling and applied to the species-specific noise-impact threshold. The formula is founded on the following assumptions:
• All piles to be installed would have a noise disturbance distance equal to the pile that causes the greatest noise disturbance.
• Pile driving could potentially occur every day of the in-water work window; however, it is estimated no more than a few hours of pile driving would occur per day.
• An individual can only be taken once per day due to sound from pile driving, whether from impact or vibratory pile driving, or vibratory extraction
The conservative assumption is made that all pinnipeds within the ZOI would be underwater during at least a portion of the noise generating activity and, hence, exposed to sound at the predicted levels.
The calculation for marine mammal takes is estimated by:
The calculation n * ZOI produces an estimate of the abundance of animals that could be present in the area of exposure per day. The abundance is then multiplied by the total number of days of pile driving to determine the take estimate. Because the estimate must be a whole number, this value was rounded up.
The ZOI impact area is the estimated range of impact on marine mammals during in-water construction. The ZOI is the area in which in-water sound would exceed designated NOAA Fisheries Service thresholds. The formula for determining the area of a circle (π
Harbor porpoises may be present in the Project area during spring, summer, and fall, from April to December. Based on density data from the Navy Marine Species Density Database, their presence is highest in spring, decreases in summer, and slightly increases in fall. However, in general, porpoises are known to occasionally occur in the river. Average density for the predicted seasons of occurrence was used to determine abundance of animals that could be present in the area for exposure, using the equation abundance = n * ZOI. Estimated abundance estimate for harbor porpoises was 0.90 animals generated from the equation (0.9445 km
Gray seals may be present year-round in the project vicinity, with constant densities throughout the year. Gray seals are less common in the Piscataqua River than the harbor seal. Average density for the predicted seasons of occurrence was used to determine abundance of animals that could be present in the area for exposure, using the equation abundance = n * ZOI. Estimated abundance for gray seals was 0.21/day generated from the equation (0.9445 km
Harbor seals may be present year-round in the project vicinity, with constant densities throughout the year. Harbor seals are the most common pinniped in the Piscataqua River near the Shipyard. Average density for the predicted seasons of occurrence was used to determine abundance of animals that could be present in the area for exposure, using the equation abundance = n * ZOI. Abundance for harbor seals was 0.19/day generated from the equation (0.9445 km
Harp seals may be present in the Project vicinity during the winter and spring, from January through February. In general, harp seals are much rarer than the harbor seal and gray seal in the Piscataqua River. Average density for the predicted seasons of occurrence was used to determine abundance of animals that could be present in the area for exposure, using the equation abundance = n * ZOI. Abundance for harp seals was 0.012/day generated from the equation (0.9445 km
Hooded seals may be present in the project vicinity during the winter and spring, from January through May, though their exact seasonal densities are unknown. In general, hooded seals are much rarer than the harbor seal and gray seal in the Piscataqua River. Anecdotal sighting information indicates that two hooded seals were observed from the Shipyard in August 2009, but no other observations have been recorded (Trefry November 20, 2015). Average density for the predicted seasons of occurrence was used to determine abundance of animals that could be present in the area for exposure. Since the average density for hooded seals is unknown and the animal is described as being rare, no authorized take of hooded seals is requested.
The total numbers of takes proposed for the five marine mammal species that may occur within the Navy's project area during the duration of proposed in-water construction activities are presented in Table 10.
Negligible impact is “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analyses applies to all the species listed in Table 2, given that the anticipated effects of this pile driving project on marine mammals are expected to be relatively similar in nature. There is no information about the size, status, or structure of any species or stock that would lead to a different analysis for this activity, else species-specific factors would be identified and analyzed.
Pile driving activities associated with the Navy's Waterfront Improvement Projects, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) only, from underwater sounds generated from pile driving. Harassment takes could occur if individuals of these species are present in the ensonified zone when pile driving is happening.
No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated given the nature of the activity and measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for these outcomes is minimized through the implementation of the following planned mitigation measures. The Navy will employ a “soft start” when initiating impact driving activities. Given sufficient “notice” through use of soft start, marine mammals are expected to move away from a pile driving source. The Navy will delineate and monitor shutdown and disturbance zones while the likelihood of marine mammal detection by trained observers is high under the environmental conditions described for waters around the project area. Furthermore, shutdowns will occur if animals come within 10 meters of operational activity to avoid injury, serious injury, or mortality. The Navy's proposed activities are localized and of relatively short duration. The total time duration will amount to approximately 72 days.
The project also is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitat, as analyzed in detail in the “Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat” section. No important feeding and/or reproductive areas for marine mammals are known to be near the proposed project area. Project-related activities may cause some fish to leave the area
These localized Level B exposures may cause brief startle reactions or short-term behavioral modification by the animals. Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) (
In summary, the negligible impact analysis is based on the following: (1) The possibility of injury, serious injury, or mortality may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) the anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior; (3) the absence of any significant habitat within the project area, including rookeries, significant haul-outs, or known areas or features of special significance for foraging or reproduction; and (4) the anticipated efficacy of the proposed mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activity will have only short-term effects on individuals. The specified activity is not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore have a negligible impact on those species.
Therefore, based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the Navy's proposed Waterfront Improvement Projects will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Table 11 illustrates the numbers of animals that could be exposed to Level B behavioral harassment thresholds from work associated with the proposed Waterfront Improvement Projects. The analyses provided represents <0.01% of the populations of these stocks that could be affected by Level B behavioral harassment. These are small numbers of marine mammals relative to the sizes of the affected species and population stocks under consideration.
Based on the methods used to estimate take, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, we preliminarily find that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
No species listed under the ESA are expected to be affected by these activities. Therefore, NMFS has determined that a section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required.
The Navy has prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to the Navy for Waterfront Improvements Projects at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. The proposed IHA language is provided next.
1. This Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) is valid from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017.
2. This Authorization is valid only for in-water construction work associated with Waterfront Improvement Projects at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine.
3. General Conditions
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of the Navy, its designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of this IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking are harbor porpoise (
(c) The taking, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the species listed in condition 3(b). See Table 1 below:
(d) The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or death of any of the species listed in condition 3(b) of the Authorization or any taking of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(e) The Navy shall conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and staff prior to the start of all in-water pile driving, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
4. Mitigation Measures
The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the following mitigation measures:
(a) Time Restriction: For all in-water pile driving activities, the Navy shall operate only during daylight hours.
(b) Pile Driving Weather Delays: Pile driving shall only take place when the entire ZOI is visible and can be adequately monitored. If conditions (
(c) If a marine mammal approaches the shutdown zone during the course of pile driving/removal operations, pile driving shall be halted and delayed until either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal.
(d) Establishment of Level A and B Harassment (ZOI)
(i) For all pile driving, the Navy shall implement a minimum shutdown zone of 10 m radius around the pile. If a marine mammal comes within or approaches the shutdown zone, such operations will cease. See Table 9 for minimum radial distances required for Level A and Level B disturbance zones.
(e) Use of Soft-start
(i) The project shall utilize soft start techniques for impact pile driving. The Navy shall conduct an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then two subsequent three strike sets. Soft start shall be required for any impact driving, including at the beginning of the day, and at any time following a cessation of pile driving of thirty minutes or longer.
(ii) Whenever there has been downtime of 30 minutes or more without impact driving, the contractor shall initiate the driving with soft-start procedures described above.
(f) Standard mitigation measures
(i) For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving (using,
(g) Visual Marine Mammal Monitoring and Observation
(i) A minimum of two MMOs shall be in place at the best practicable vantage points.
(ii) Monitoring will be conducted during all impact driving activity and during two-thirds of all vibratory driving activity
(iii) MMOs shall begin observing for marine mammals within the Level A and Level B harassment zones for 15 minutes before in-water pile driving begins. If a marine mammal(s) is present within the 10 meter shutdown zone prior to pile driving or during the “soft start” the start of pile driving shall be delayed until the animal(s) leaves the 10 meter shutdown zone. Pile driving shall resume only after the MMOs have determined, through sighting or by waiting 15 minutes, that the animal(s) has moved outside of and is on a path away from the 10 meter shutdown zone.
(iv) The individuals shall scan the waters within each monitoring zone activity using binoculars (25x or equivalent), hand held binoculars (7x) and visual observation
(v) The waters shall continue to be scanned for at least 30 minutes after pile driving has completed each day.
5. Monitoring and Reporting
The holder of this Authorization is required to submit a draft report on all monitoring conducted under the IHA 60 days prior to the issuance of a subsequent authorization, A final report shall be prepared and submitted within thirty days following resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS. This report must contain the informational elements described in the Monitoring Plan, at a minimum and shall also include:
(a) Acoustic Monitoring
(i) The Navy shall conduct acoustic monitoring to ensure source levels are in line what is expected and therefore the Level A and Level B zones are accurate.
(b) Data Collection
(i) For all marine mammal and acoustic monitoring, information shall be recorded as described in the Monitoring Plan.
(c) Reporting Measures
(i) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or mortality (
1. Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
2. Name and type of vessel involved;
3. Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident, if applicable;
4. Description of the incident;
5. Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
6. Water depth;
7. Environmental conditions (
8. Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
9. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
10. Fate of the animal(s); and
11. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
(ii) Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with the Navy to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The Navy would not be able to resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
(iii) In the event that the Navy discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead MMO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
(iv) In the event that the Navy discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead MMO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
6. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
NMFS requests comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of the Notice of Proposed IHA for the Navy's Waterfront Improvement Projects at Portsmouth Navy Shipyard in Kittery, Maine. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the Navy's request for an MMPA authorization.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold its 157th meeting.
The meeting will be held on August 23-24, 2016. The Council will convene on Tuesday, August 23, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and will reconvene on Wednesday, August 24, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Condado Vanderbilt Hotel, Condado Avenue, Condado, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918; telephone: (787) 766-5926.
The Council will hold its 157th regular Council Meeting to discuss the items contained in the following agenda:
The established times for addressing items on the agenda may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the agenda items. To further accommodate discussion and completion of all items on the agenda, the meeting may be extended from, or completed prior to the date established in this notice.
The meeting is open to the public, and will be conducted in English. Fishers and other interested persons are invited to attend and participate with oral or written statements regarding agenda issues.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be subjects for formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice, and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and/other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918, telephone (787) 766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of teleconference.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Electronic Monitoring Workgroup (EMWG) will hold a teleconference on August 25, 2016.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, August 25, 2016, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Alaska Time).
The meeting will be held telephonically at the following number: (907) 271-2896.
Diana Evans, Council staff; telephone: 907-271-2809.
The agenda will include an update on the 2016 pre-implementation program, review EM integration initial review draft analysis, review of the 2017 pre-implementation proposal, and other business and scheduling. The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
Office for Coastal Management (OCM), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of request for comment.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management will hold a public meeting to solicit comments on the performance evaluation of the New Hampshire Coastal Management Program.
For specific dates, times, and locations of the public meetings, see
You may submit comments on the program or reserve NOAA intends to evaluate by any of the following methods:
Pam Kylstra, Program Development Specialist, Learning Services Division, Office for Coastal Management, 2234 S. Hobson Avenue, Charleston, South Carolina 29405, or email comments
Section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires NOAA to conduct periodic evaluations of federally approved state and territorial coastal programs. The process includes one or more public meetings, consideration of written public comments and consultations with interested Federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public. During the evaluation, NOAA will consider the extent to which the state has met the national objectives, adhered to the management program approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance under the CZMA. When the evaluation is completed, NOAA's Office for Coastal Management will place a notice in the
Specific information on the periodic evaluation of the state and territorial coastal program that is the subject of this notice is detailed below as follows:
You may participate or submit oral comments at the public meeting scheduled as follows:
Written public comments must be received on or before September 30, 2016.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that we have issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the U.S. Navy (Navy) to incidentally harass marine mammals during construction activities associated with the bravo wharf recapitalization project at Naval Station Mayport, FL.
This authorization is effective from December 1, 2016, through November 30, 2017.
Laura McCue, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
An electronic copy of the Navy's application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained by visiting the Internet at:
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
The incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals may be allowed only if NMFS (through authority delegated by the Secretary) finds that the total taking by the specified activity during the specified time period will (i) have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and (ii) not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking must be set forth, either in specific regulations or in an authorization.
The allowance of such incidental taking under section 101(a)(5)(A), by harassment, serious injury, death, or a combination thereof, requires that regulations be established. Subsequently, a Letter of Authorization may be issued pursuant to the prescriptions established in such regulations, providing that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the specific regulations. Under section 101(a)(5)(D), NMFS may authorize such incidental taking by harassment only, for periods of not more than one year, pursuant to requirements and conditions contained within an IHA. The establishment of prescriptions through either specific regulations or an authorization requires notice and opportunity for public comment.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “. . . any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].”
On July 21, 2015, we received a request from the Navy for authorization of the taking, by Level B harassment only, of marine mammals, incidental to pile driving in association with the Bravo Wharf recapitalization project at Naval Station Mayport (NSM), Florida.
The use of both vibratory and impact pile driving is expected to produce underwater sound at levels that have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals. One species of marine mammal has the potential to be affected by the specified activities: Bottlenose dolphin (
Similar wharf construction and pile driving activities in Naval Station Mayport have been authorized by NMFS in the past for a different construction project at Wharf C. The first authorization was effective between September 1, 2014 through August 31, 2015 (79 FR 27863; May 5, 2014), and the second authorization, which is currently ongoing, is effective from September 8, 2015 through September 7, 2016 (80 FR 55598; September 16, 2015).
Bravo Wharf is a medium draft, general purpose berthing wharf that was constructed in 1970 and lies at the western edge of the NSM turning basin. Bravo Wharf is approximately 2,000 ft long, 125 ft wide, and has a berthing depth of 50 ft mean lower low water. The wharf is one of two primary deep draft berths at the basin and is capable of berthing ships up to and including large amphibious ships; it is one of three primary ordnance handling berths at the basin. The wharf is a diaphragm steel sheet pile cell structure with a concrete apron, partial concrete encasement of the piling and asphalt paved deck. The wharf is currently in poor condition due to advanced deterioration of the steel sheeting and lack of corrosion protection. This structural deterioration has resulted in the institution of load restrictions within 60 ft of the wharf face. The purpose of this project is to complete necessary repairs to Bravo Wharf. Please refer to the Navy's application for a schematic of the project plan.
The total project is expected to require a maximum of 130 days of in-water pile driving. The project may require up to 24 months for completion; in-water activities are limited to a maximum of 130 days, separated into two phases. If in-water work will extend beyond the effective dates of the IHA, a second IHA application will be submitted by the Navy. There will be a maximum of 110 days for vibratory pile driving (73 days in phase I and 37 days in phase II), and a contingent 20 days of impact pile driving. The specified activities are expected to occur between December 1, 2016 and November 30, 2017.
NSM is located in northeastern Florida, at the mouth of the St. Johns River and adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean (see Figures 2-1 and 2-2 of the Navy's application). The St. Johns River is the longest river in Florida, with the final 35 mi flowing through the city of Jacksonville. This portion of the river is significant for commercial shipping and military use. At the mouth of the river, near the action area, the Atlantic Ocean is the dominant influence and typical salinities are above 30 ppm. Outside the river mouth, in nearshore waters, moderate oceanic currents tend to flow southward parallel to the coast. Sea surface temperatures range from around 16 °C in winter to 28 °C in summer.
The specific action area consists of the NSM turning basin, an area of approximately 2,000 by 3,000 ft containing ship berthing facilities at 16 locations along wharves around the basin perimeter. The basin was constructed during the early 1940s by dredging the eastern part of Ribault Bay (at the mouth of the St. Johns River), with dredge material from the basin used to fill parts of the bay and other low-lying areas in order to elevate the land surface. The basin is currently maintained through regular dredging at a depth of 50 ft, with depths at the berths ranging from 30-50 ft. The turning basin, connected to the St. Johns River by a 500-ft-wide entrance channel, will largely contain sound produced by project activities, with the exception of sound propagating east into nearshore Atlantic waters through the entrance channel (see Figure 2-2 of the Navy's application). Bravo Wharf is located in the western corner of the Mayport turning basin.
In order to rehabilitate Bravo Wharf, the Navy proposes to install a new steel sheet pile bulkhead at Bravo Wharf. The project consists of installing a total of approximately 880 single sheet piles (Phase I—berths B-2 and B-3: 590; Phase II—berth B-1: 290). The wall will be anchored at the top and fill consisting of clean gravel and flowable concrete fill will be placed behind the wall. A concrete cap will be formed along the top and outside face of the wall to tie the entire structure together and provide a berthing surface for vessels. The new bulkhead will be designed for a fifty-year service life.
All piles will be driven by vibratory hammer, although impact pile driving may be used as a contingency in cases when vibratory driving is not sufficient to reach the necessary depth. In the unlikely event that impact driving is required, either impact or vibratory driving could occur on a given day, but concurrent use of vibratory and impact drivers will not occur. The Navy estimates that a total of 130 in-water work days may be required to complete pile driving activity, which includes 20 days for contingency impact driving, if necessary.
We published a notice of receipt of the Navy's application and proposed IHA in the
There are four marine mammal species which may inhabit or transit through the waters nearby NSM at the mouth of the St. Johns River and in nearby nearshore Atlantic waters. These include the bottlenose dolphin, Atlantic spotted dolphin (
Our
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses.
Measurements from similar pile driving events were coupled with practical spreading loss to estimate
The following measures will apply to the Navy's mitigation through shutdown and disturbance zones:
In order to document observed incidents of harassment, monitors record all marine mammal observations, regardless of location. The observer's location, as well as the location of the pile being driven, is known from a GPS. The location of the animal is estimated as a distance from the observer, which is then compared to the location from the pile. It may then be estimated whether the animal was exposed to sound levels constituting incidental harassment on the basis of predicted distances to relevant thresholds in post-processing of observational and acoustic data, and a precise accounting of observed incidences of harassment created. This information may then be used to extrapolate observed takes to reach an approximate understanding of actual total takes.
The following additional measures apply to visual monitoring:
(1) Monitoring will be conducted by qualified observers, who will be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. Qualified observers are typically trained biologists, with the following minimum qualifications:
• Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
• Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic experience);
• Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
• Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine mammal behavior; and
• Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
(2) Prior to the start of pile driving activity, the shutdown zone will be monitored for 15 minutes to ensure that it is clear of marine mammals. Pile driving will only commence once observers have declared the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals; animals will be allowed to remain in the shutdown zone (
(3) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during the course of pile driving operations, activity will be halted and delayed until either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal. Monitoring will be conducted throughout the time required to drive a pile.
The use of a soft start procedure is believed to provide additional protection to marine mammals by warning or providing a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer operating at full capacity, and typically involves a requirement to initiate sound from the hammer at reduced energy followed by a waiting period. This procedure is repeated two additional times. It is difficult to specify the reduction in energy for any given hammer because of variation across drivers and, for impact hammers, the actual number of strikes at reduced energy will vary because operating the hammer at less than full power results in “bouncing” of the hammer as it strikes the pile, resulting in multiple “strikes.” For impact driving, we require an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at reduced energy, followed by a thirty-second waiting period, then two subsequent three strike sets. Soft start will be required at the beginning of each day's impact pile driving work and at any time following a cessation of impact pile driving of 30 minutes or longer.
We have carefully evaluated the Navy's proposed mitigation measures and considered their effectiveness in past implementation to determine whether they are likely to effect the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals, (2) the proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and (3) the practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) we prescribe should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:
(1) Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
(2) A reduction in the number (total number or number at biologically important time or location) of individual marine mammals exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment only).
(3) A reduction in the number (total number or number at biologically important time or location) of times any individual marine mammal would be exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment only).
(4) A reduction in the intensity of exposure to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the severity of behavioral harassment only).
(5) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying particular attention to the prey base, blockage or limitation of passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.
(6) For monitoring directly related to mitigation, an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the Navy's proposed measures, as well as any other potential measures that may be relevant to the specified activity, we have determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for incidental take authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.
Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should improve our understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species in action area (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual responses to acute stressors, or impacts of chronic exposures (behavioral or physiological).
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) Population, species, or stock.
• Effects on marine mammal habitat and resultant impacts to marine mammals.
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
The Navy's planned monitoring and reporting is also described in their Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, on the Internet at
The Navy will collect sighting data and behavioral responses to construction for marine mammal species observed in the region of activity during the period of activity. All observers (MMOs) will be trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring. The Navy will monitor the shutdown zone and disturbance zone before, during, and after pile driving, with observers located at the best practicable vantage points. Based on our requirements, the Navy will implement the following procedures for pile driving:
• MMOs will be located at the best vantage point(s) in order to properly see the entire shutdown zone and as much of the disturbance zone as possible.
• During all observation periods, observers will use binoculars and the naked eye to search continuously for marine mammals.
• If the shutdown zones are obscured by fog or poor lighting conditions, pile driving at that location will not be initiated until that zone is visible. Should such conditions arise while impact driving is underway, the activity will be halted.
• The shutdown and disturbance zones around the pile will be monitored for the presence of marine mammals before, during, and after any pile driving or removal activity.
Individuals implementing the monitoring protocol will assess its effectiveness using an adaptive approach. The monitoring biologists will use their best professional judgment throughout implementation and seek improvements to these methods when deemed appropriate. Any modifications to protocol will be coordinated between NMFS and the Navy.
We require that observers use approved data forms. Among other pieces of information, the Navy will record detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, the Navy will attempt to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidences of take. We require that, at a minimum, the following information be collected on the sighting forms:
• Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
• Construction activities occurring during each observation period;
• Weather parameters (
• Water conditions (
• Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals;
• Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of travel, and if possible, the correlation to SPLs;
• Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
• Description of implementation of mitigation measures (
• Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
• Other human activity in the area.
A draft report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring, or 60 days prior to the requested date of issuance of any future IHA for projects at the same location, whichever comes first. The report will include marine mammal observations pre-activity, during-activity, and post-activity during pile driving days, and will also provide descriptions of any behavioral responses to construction activities by marine mammals and a complete description of all mitigation shutdowns and the results of those actions and an extrapolated total take estimate based on the number of marine mammals observed during the course of construction. A final report must be submitted within 30 days following resolution of comments on the draft report.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “. . . any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].”
All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment resulting from vibratory and impact pile driving and involving temporary changes in behavior. The planned mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the possibility of injurious or lethal takes such that take by Level A harassment, serious injury, or mortality is considered discountable. However, it is unlikely that injurious or lethal takes would occur even in the absence of the planned mitigation and monitoring measures.
If a marine mammal responds to a stimulus by changing its behavior (
The turning basin is not considered important habitat for marine mammals, as it is a man-made, semi-enclosed basin with frequent industrial activity and regular maintenance dredging. The surrounding waters may be an important foraging habitat for the dolphins; however the small area of ensonification does not extend outside of the turning basin and into this foraging habitat (see Figure 6-1 in the Navy's application). Therefore, behavioral disturbances that could result from anthropogenic sound associated with these activities are expected to affect only a relatively small number of individual marine mammals that may venture near the turning basin, although those effects could be recurring over the life of the project if the same individuals remain in the project vicinity. The Navy has requested authorization for the incidental taking of small numbers of bottlenose dolphins in the Mayport turning basin that may result from pile driving during construction activities associated with the project described previously in this document.
In order to estimate the potential incidents of take that may occur incidental to the specified activity, we must first estimate the extent of the sound field that may be produced by the activity and then consider in combination with information about marine mammal density or abundance in the project area. We described applicable sound thresholds for determining effects to marine mammals before describing the information used in estimating the sound fields, the
The Mayport turning basin does not represent open water, or free field, conditions. Therefore, sounds would attenuate as per the confines of the basin, and may only reach the full estimated distances to the harassment thresholds via the narrow, east-facing entrance channel. Distances shown in Table 2 are estimated for free-field conditions, but areas are calculated per the actual conditions of the action area. See Figures 6-1 and 6-2 of the Navy's application for a depiction of areas in which each underwater sound threshold is predicted to occur at the project area due to pile driving.
For all species, the best scientific information available was considered for use in the marine mammal take assessment calculations. Density for bottlenose dolphins is derived from site-specific surveys conducted by the Navy (see Appendix C of the Navy's application for more information); it is not currently possible to identify observed individuals to stock.
The following assumptions are made when estimating potential incidents of take:
• All marine mammal individuals potentially available are assumed to be present within the relevant area, and thus incidentally taken;
• An individual can only be taken once during a 24-h period; and,
• There will be 110 total days of vibratory driving (73 days in phase I and 37 days in phase II) and 20 days of impact pile driving.
• Exposures to sound levels at or above the relevant thresholds equate to take, as defined by the MMPA.
The estimation of marine mammal takes typically uses the following calculation:
The ZOI impact area is estimated using the relevant distances in Table 2, taking into consideration the possible affected area with attenuation due to the constraints of the basin. Because the basin restricts sound from propagating outward, with the exception of the east-facing entrance channel, the radial distances to thresholds are not generally reached.
There are a number of reasons why estimates of potential incidents of take may be conservative, assuming that available density or abundance estimates and estimated ZOI areas are accurate. We assume, in the absence of information supporting a more refined conclusion, that the output of the calculation represents the number of individuals that may be taken by the specified activity. In fact, in the context of stationary activities such as pile driving and in areas where resident animals may be present, this number more realistically represents the number of incidents of take that may accrue to a smaller number of individuals. While pile driving can occur any day throughout the in-water work window, and the analysis is conducted on a per day basis, only a fraction of that time (typically a matter of hours on any given day) is actually spent pile driving. The potential effectiveness of mitigation measures in reducing the number of takes is typically not quantified in the take estimation process. For these reasons, these take estimates may be conservative.
The quantitative exercise described above indicates that no incidents of Level A harassment would be expected, independent of the implementation of required mitigation measures. See Table 3 for total estimated incidents of take.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
Pile driving activities associated with the wharf construction project, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) only, from underwater sounds generated from pile driving. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species are present in the ensonified zone when pile driving is happening.
No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated given the nature of the activities and measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for these outcomes is minimized through the construction method and the implementation of the planned mitigation measures. Specifically, vibratory hammers will be the primary method of installation (impact driving is included only as a contingency and is not expected to be required), and this activity does not have the potential to cause injury to marine mammals due to the relatively low source levels produced (less than 180 dB) and the lack of potentially injurious source characteristics. Impact pile driving produces short, sharp pulses with higher peak levels and much sharper rise time to reach those peaks. If impact driving is necessary, implementation of soft start and shutdown zones significantly reduces any possibility of injury. Given sufficient “notice” through use of soft start (for impact driving), marine mammals are expected to move away from a sound source that is annoying prior to it becoming potentially injurious. Environmental conditions in the confined and protected Mayport turning basin mean that marine mammal detection ability by trained observers is high, enabling a high rate of success in implementation of shutdowns to avoid injury.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) (
In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the following factors: (1) The possibility of injury, serious injury, or mortality may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) the anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior; (3) the absence of any significant habitat within the project area, including known areas or features of special significance for foraging or reproduction; (4) the presumed efficacy of the planned mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level of least practicable impact. In addition, these stocks are not listed under the ESA, although coastal bottlenose dolphins are designated as depleted under the MMPA. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activity will have only short-term effects on individuals. The specified activity is not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-level impacts.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
As described previously, of the 370 incidents of behavioral harassment predicted to occur for bottlenose dolphin, we have no information allowing us to parse those predicted incidents amongst the three stocks of bottlenose dolphin that may occur in the project area. Therefore, we assessed the total number of predicted incidents of take against the best abundance estimate for each stock, as though the total would occur for the stock in question. For one of the bottlenose dolphin stocks, the total predicted number of incidents of take authorized would be considered small—approximately four percent for the southern migratory stock—even if each estimated taking occurred to a new individual. This is an extremely unlikely scenario as, for bottlenose dolphins in estuarine and nearshore waters, there is likely to be some overlap in individuals present day-to-day.
The total number of authorized takes for bottlenose dolphins, if assumed to accrue solely to new individuals of the Jacksonville Estuarine Stock (JES) or northern Florida coastal stocks, is higher relative to the total stock abundance, which is currently considered unknown for the JES stock and is 1,219 for the northern Florida coastal stock. However, these numbers represent the estimated incidents of take, not the number of individuals taken. That is, it is highly likely that a relatively small subset of these bottlenose dolphins will be harassed by project activities.
JES bottlenose dolphins range from Cumberland Sound at the Georgia-Florida border south to approximately Palm Coast, Florida, an area spanning over 120 linear km of coastline and including habitat consisting of complex inshore and estuarine waterways. JES dolphins, divided by Caldwell (2001) into Northern and Southern groups, show strong site fidelity and, although members of both groups have been observed outside their preferred areas, it is likely that the majority of JES dolphins would not occur within waters ensonified by project activities.
In the western North Atlantic, the Northern Florida Coastal Stock is present in coastal Atlantic waters from the Georgia/Florida border south to 29.4° N. (Waring
In summary, JES dolphins are known to form two groups and exhibit strong site fidelity (
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, we find that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Therefore, we have determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
No marine mammal species listed under the ESA are expected to be affected by these activities. Therefore, we have determined that section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
As a result of these determinations, we have issued an IHA to the Navy for conducting the described construction activities at the Bravo Wharf at NSM, Jacksonville, FL for one year of issuance, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to construction activities as part of a pier replacement project. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the Navy to incidentally take marine mammals, by
Comments and information must be received no later than September 8, 2016.
Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to
Ben Laws, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
An electronic copy of the Navy's application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained by visiting the Internet at:
The Navy prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA; 2013) for this project. We subsequently adopted the EA and signed our own Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) prior to issuing the first IHA for this project, in accordance with NEPA and the regulations published by the Council on Environmental Quality. Information in the Navy's application, the Navy's EA, and this notice collectively provide the environmental information related to proposed issuance of this IHA for public review and comment. All documents are available at the aforementioned Web site. We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice as we complete the NEPA process, including a decision of whether the existing EA and FONSI provide adequate analysis related to the potential environmental effects of issuing an IHA to the Navy, prior to a final decision on the incidental take authorization request.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].”
On June 16, 2016, we received a request from the Navy for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to pile installation and demolition associated with a pier replacement project in San Diego Bay at Naval Base Point Loma in San Diego, CA (NBPL), including a separate monitoring plan. The Navy also submitted a draft monitoring report on June 2, 2016, pursuant to requirements of the previous IHA. The Navy submitted revised versions of the request and monitoring plan on August 3, 2016, and a revised monitoring report on July 12, 2016. These documents were deemed adequate and complete. The pier replacement project is planned to occur over multiple years; this proposed IHA would cover only the fourth year of work and would be valid for a period of one year from the date of issuance. Hereafter, use of the generic term “pile driving” may refer to both pile installation and removal unless otherwise noted.
The use of both vibratory and impact pile driving, as well as various demolition techniques, is expected to produce underwater sound at levels that have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals. Species with the expected potential to be present during all or a portion of the in-water work window include the California sea lion (
This would be the fourth such IHA, if issued, following the IHAs issued effective from September 1, 2013, through August 31, 2014 (78 FR 44539), from October 8, 2014, through October 7, 2015 (79 FR 65378), and from October 8, 2015, through October 7, 2016 (80 FR 62032). Monitoring reports are available on the Internet at
NBPL provides berthing and support services for Navy submarines and other fleet assets. The existing fuel pier serves as a fuel depot for loading and unloading tankers and Navy underway replenishment vessels that refuel ships at sea (“oilers”), as well as transferring fuel to local replenishment vessels and other small craft operating in San Diego Bay, and is the only active Navy fueling facility in southern California. Portions of the pier are over one hundred years old, while the newer segment was constructed in 1942. The pier as a whole is significantly past its design service life and does not meet current construction standards.
The Navy plans to demolish and remove the existing pier and associated pipelines and appurtenances while simultaneously replacing it with a generally similar structure that meets relevant standards for seismic strength and is designed to better accommodate modern Navy ships. Demolition and construction are planned to occur in two phases to maintain the fueling capabilities of the existing pier while the new pier is being constructed. During the fourth year of construction (the specified activity considered under this proposed IHA), the Navy anticipates construction at two locations: the fuel pier area and at the Naval Mine and Anti-Submarine Warfare Command (NMAWC), where the Navy's Marine Mammal Program (MMP) was temporarily moved during fuel pier construction (see Figure 1-1 in the Navy's application). At the fuel pier, the Navy anticipates driving remaining concrete fender piles and driving remaining steel piles for mooring dolphins. At NMAWC, Navy anticipates extracting and driving concrete piles as needed to return the existing facility to its configuration prior to temporary placement of the MMP, which will be returned to its previous location near the fuel pier. For construction work at the fuel pier, Navy anticipates driving approximately 24 30-in steel pipe piles, 81 30 x 24-in concrete piles, and one 16-in concrete-filled fiberglass pile. Steel pipe piles would be installed to refusal using a vibratory driver and then finished using an impact hammer; concrete piles would be installed to within five feet of tip elevation via jetting before being finished with an impact hammer, and the fiberglass pile would be installed entirely using an impact hammer. At NMAWC, Navy anticipates driving 21 16-in concrete piles using an impact hammer and removing forty existing 16-in concrete piles used for the temporary MMP relocation. See Table 1-4 in the Navy's application for more detail on piles to be installed.
The majority of demolition activity of the existing pier would occur concurrently during this fourth IHA period, including the removal of approximately 458 steel, concrete, and plastic piles and 51 concrete-filled steel caissons. Removals may occur by multiple means, including vibratory removal, hydraulic pile cutter, torch cutter, dead pull, and diamond saw, as determined to be most effective. See Table 1-3 in the Navy's application for more detail on piles to be removed.
The proposed actions with the potential to incidentally harass marine mammals within the waters adjacent to NBPL are vibratory and impact pile installation and certain demolition (
The proposed activities that would be authorized by this IHA, during the fourth year of work associated with the fuel pier project, would occur for one year from the date of issuance of this proposed IHA. Under the terms of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Navy and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), all noise- and turbidity-producing in-water activities in designated least tern foraging habitat are to be avoided during the period when least terns are present and engaged in nesting and foraging (a window from approximately May 1 through September 15). However, it is possible that in-water work not expected to result in production of significant noise or turbidity (
NBPL is located on the peninsula of Point Loma near the mouth and along the northern edge of San Diego Bay (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2 in the Navy's application). San Diego Bay is a narrow, crescent-shaped natural embayment oriented northwest-southeast with an approximate length of 24 km and a total area of roughly 4,500 ha. The width of the bay ranges from 0.3 to 5.8 km, and depths range from 23 m mean lower low water (MLLW) near the tip of Ballast Point to less than 2 m at the southern end (see Figure 2-1 of the Navy's application). San Diego Bay is a heavily urbanized area with a mix of industrial, military, and recreational uses. The northern and central portions of the bay have been shaped by historic dredging to support large ship navigation. Dredging occurs as necessary to maintain constant depth within the navigation channel. Outside the navigation channel, the bay floor consists of platforms at depths that vary slightly. Sediments in northern San Diego Bay are relatively sandy as tidal currents tend to keep the finer silt and clay fractions in suspension, except in harbors and elsewhere in the lee of structures where water movement is diminished. Much of the shoreline consists of riprap and manmade structures. San Diego Bay is heavily used by commercial, recreational, and military vessels, with an average of over 80,000 vessel movements (in or out of the bay) per year (not including recreational boating within the Bay) (see Table 2-2 of the Navy's application). For more information about the specific geographic region, please see section 2.3 of the Navy's application.
In order to provide context, we described the entire project in our
Steel piles are typically vibratory-driven for their initial embedment depths or to refusal and finished with an impact hammer for proofing or until the pile meets structural requirements, as necessary. Proofing involves striking a driven pile with an impact hammer to verify that it provides the required load-bearing capacity, as indicated by the number of hammer blows per foot of pile advancement. Non-steel piles are typically impact-driven for their entire embedment depth, in part because non-steel piles are often displacement piles (as opposed to pipe piles) and require some impact to allow substrate penetration. However, jetting may be used to advance displacement piles to a certain embedment depth. Pile jetting utilizes a directed and flow of pressurized water to assist in pile placement. The jetting technique liquefies the soils at the pile tip during pile placement, reducing the friction between adjacent sub-grade soil particles around the water jet. This greatly decreases the bearing capacity of the soils below the pile tip, causing the pile to descend toward its final tip elevation with much less soil resistance, largely under its own weight.
Piles may also be removed by simply dry pulling, or pulling after the pile has been loosened using a vibratory hammer or a pneumatic chipper. Jetting may be another option to loosen piles that could not be removed through the previous procedures. Pile removal is not generally expected to require the use of vibratory extraction or pneumatic chipping, and these methods are considered as contingency in the event other methods of extraction are not successful.
During the first in-water work season (2013-14), two primary activities were conducted: Relocation of the MMP and the Indicator Pile Program (IPP). During the second in-water work season (2014-15), the IPP was concluded and simultaneous construction of the new pier and demolition of the old pier begun. Production pile driving continued during the third in-water work season (2015-16).
The Navy MMP, administered by Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command Systems Center, was moved approximately three kilometers to the NMAWC (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2 of the Navy's Year 1 monitoring report). Although not subject to the MMPA, SSC's working animals were temporarily relocated so that they will not be affected by the project. Over the course of 25 in-water construction days from January 28 to March 13, 2014, the Navy removed thirty and installed 81 concrete piles (12- and 16-in). See Table 3-2 of the Navy's Year 1 monitoring report for details. Installation was accomplished via a D19-42 American Pile Driving Equipment, Inc. (APE) diesel hammer with energy capacity of 23,566-42,800 ft-lbs and fitted with a hydraulic tripping cylinder with four adjustable power settings that could be reset while driving. Pile removal was accomplished by jetting and dead pull.
The IPP was designed to validate the length of pile required and the method of installation (vibratory and impact) as well as to validate acoustic sound pressure levels of the various sizes and locations (
Production pile driving associated with construction of the new pier was begun in Fall 2014 and continued into Spring 2015. Both vibratory and impact driving was used, as described above, to install 238 steel pipe piles (four 18-in, 31 30-in, and 203 36-in diameter). Hammers used were the same as those described above. Demolition activity was begun in Spring 2015, and included the removal of four caissons, eighteen concrete fender piles, and a portion of concrete decking from the existing fuel pier. In total, this work consisted of one hundred days of activity from October 16, 2014, through April 29, 2015. Of these one hundred days of in-water work, eighteen days involved only impact driving, fifteen days included only vibratory driving, and 65 days where both types of driving occurred.
Production pile driving continued in early 2016 during three distinct construction periods from January 11 through April 30, 2016, with 161 piles installed over the course of fifty days. Because most structural steel pipe piles were installed under the Year 2 IHA, this work primarily involved placement of non-structural concrete fender piles. Both vibratory and impact driving was used, as described above, to install 132 16-in polycarbonate coated concrete fender piles and 23 24 x 30-in concrete fender piles. In addition, six 30-in steel pipe piles were installed as structural elements to support a mooring dolphin. Hammers used for the steel piles were the same as those described above. The 16-in concrete piles were driven using an APE single action diesel impact hammer model D25-32, with energy capacity of 29,484-58,245 ft-lbs and fitted with a manual power level modulator and shut off trip. The 24 x 30-in concrete piles were driven using an APE single action diesel impact hammer model D80-42, with energy capacity of 127,008-198,450 ft-lbs and fitted with a manual power level modulator and shut off trip. No demolition occurred during this period. Of the 50 days of in-water work, 45 days involved only impact driving, two days included only vibratory driving, and three days where both types of driving occurred. Please see the Year 3 monitoring report for more information. Additional work may be conducted under the existing IHA between September 15 and October 7, 2016, in which case the submitted monitoring report would be amended as necessary.
There are four marine mammal species which are either resident or have known seasonal occurrence in the vicinity of San Diego Bay, including the California sea lion, harbor seal, bottlenose dolphin, and gray whale (see Figures 3-1 through 3-4 and 4-1 in the Navy's application). In addition, common dolphins (see Figure 3-4 in the Navy's application), the Pacific white-sided dolphin, Risso's dolphin, and northern elephant seals are known to occur in deeper waters in the vicinity of San Diego Bay and/or have been observed within the bay during the course of this project's monitoring. Although the latter three species of cetacean would not generally be expected to occur within the project area, the potential for changes in occurrence patterns in conjunction with recent observations leads us to believe that authorization of incidental take is warranted. Common dolphins have been documented regularly at the Navy's nearby Silver Strand Training Complex, and were observed in the project area during previous years of project activity. The Pacific white-sided dolphin has been sighted along a previously used transect on the opposite side of the Point Loma peninsula (Merkel and Associates, 2008) and there were several observations of Pacific white-sided dolphins during Year 2 monitoring. Risso's dolphin is fairly common in southern California coastal waters (
Note that common dolphins could be either short-beaked (
In addition, other species that occur in the Southern California Bight may have the potential for isolated occurrence within San Diego Bay or just offshore. In particular, a short-finned pilot whale (
We have reviewed the Navy's detailed species descriptions, including life history information, for accuracy and completeness and refer the reader to Sections 3 and 4 of the Navy's application instead of reprinting the information here. Please also refer to NMFS' Web site (
Table 1 lists the marine mammal species with expected potential for occurrence in the vicinity of NBPL during the project timeframe and summarizes key information regarding stock status and abundance. See also Figures 3-1 through 3-5 of the Navy's application for observed occurrence of marine mammals in the project area. Taxonomically, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). Please see NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SAR), available at
Two populations of gray whales are recognized, Eastern and Western North Pacific (ENP and WNP). The two populations have historically been considered geographically isolated from each other; however, recent data from satellite-tracked whales indicates that there is some overlap between the stocks. Two WNP whales were tracked from Russian foraging areas along the Pacific rim to Baja California (Mate
However, only ENP whales are expected to occur in the project area. The likelihood of any gray whale being exposed to project sound to the degree considered in this document is already low, as it would require a migrating whale to linger for an extended period of time, or for multiple migrating whales to linger for shorter periods of time. While such an occurrence is not unknown, it is uncommon. Further, of the approximately 20,000 gray whales migrating through the Southern California Bight, it is extremely unlikely that one found in San Diego Bay would be one of the approximately twenty WNP whales that have been documented in the eastern Pacific (less than one percent probability). The likelihood that a WNP whale would be exposed to elevated levels of sound from the specified activities is insignificant and discountable and WNP whales are not considered further in this document.
We provided discussion of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat in our
In the aforementioned
• Sound pressure level (SPL): Sound pressure is the force per unit area, usually expressed in microPascals (μPa), where one Pascal equals one Newton exerted over an area of one square meter. The SPL is expressed in decibels (dB) as twenty times the logarithm to the base ten of the ratio between the pressure exerted by the sound to a referenced sound pressure. SPL is the quantity that is directly measured by a sound level meter. For underwater sound, SPL in dB is referenced to one microPascal (re 1 μPa), unless otherwise stated. For airborne sound, SPL in dB is referenced to 20 microPascals (re 20 μPa), unless otherwise stated.
• Frequency: Frequency is expressed in terms of oscillations, or cycles, per second. Cycles per second are commonly referred to as hertz (Hz). Typical human hearing ranges from 20 Hz to 20 kilohertz (kHz).
• Peak sound pressure: The instantaneous maximum of the absolute positive or negative pressure over the frequency range from 20 Hz to 20 kHz and presented in dB.
• Root mean square (rms) SPL: For impact pile driving, overall dB rms levels are characterized by integrating sound for each waveform across ninety percent of the acoustic energy in each wave and averaging all waves in the pile driving event. This value is referred to as the rms 90%. With this method, the time averaging per pulse varies.
• Sound Exposure Level (SEL): A measure of energy, specifically the dB level of the time integral of the squared-instantaneous sound pressure, normalized to a one second period. It is an useful metric for assessing cumulative exposure because it enables sounds of differing duration, to be compared in terms of total energy. The accumulated SEL (SEL
• Level Z weighted (unweighted), equivalent (LZ
• Level Z weighted (unweighted), fast (LZF
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses.
The mitigation strategies described below largely follow those required and successfully implemented under the first three IHAs associated with this project. For this proposed IHA, data from acoustic monitoring conducted during the first three years of work was used to estimate zones of influence (ZOIs; see “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment”); these values were used to develop mitigation measures for pile driving activities at NBPL. The ZOIs effectively represent the mitigation zone that would be established around each pile to minimize Level A harassment to marine mammals, while providing estimates of the areas within which Level B harassment might occur. In addition, the Navy has defined buffers to the estimated Level A harassment zones to further reduce the potential for Level A harassment. In addition to the measures described later in this section, the Navy would conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, acoustic monitoring team, and Navy staff prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
The following measures would apply to the Navy's mitigation through shutdown and disturbance zones:
In order to document observed incidents of harassment, monitors record all marine mammal observations, regardless of location. The observer's location, as well as the location of the pile being driven, is known from a GPS. The location of the animal is estimated as a distance from the observer, which is then compared to the location from the pile. If acoustic monitoring is being conducted for that pile, a received SPL may be estimated, or the received level may be estimated on the basis of past or subsequent acoustic monitoring. It may then be determined whether the animal was exposed to sound levels constituting incidental harassment in post-processing of observational and acoustic data, and a precise accounting of observed incidences of harassment created. Therefore, although the predicted distances to behavioral harassment thresholds are useful for estimating incidental harassment for purposes of authorizing levels of incidental take, actual take may be determined in part through the use of empirical data.
Acoustic measurements will continue during the fourth year of project activity and zones would be adjusted as indicated by empirical data. Please see the Navy's Acoustic and Marine Species Monitoring Plan (Monitoring Plan; available at
The following additional measures apply to visual monitoring:
(1) Monitoring will be conducted by qualified observers, who will be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable (as defined in the Monitoring Plan) to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. Qualified observers are trained biologists, with the following minimum qualifications:
• Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
• Advanced education in biological science or related field (undergraduate degree or higher is required);
• Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic experience);
• Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
• Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine mammal behavior; and
• Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
(2) Prior to the start of pile driving activity, the shutdown zone will be monitored for fifteen minutes to ensure that it is clear of marine mammals. Pile driving will only commence once observers have declared the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals; animals will be allowed to remain in the shutdown zone (
(3) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during the course of pile driving operations, activity will be halted and delayed until either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or fifteen minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal. Monitoring will be conducted throughout the time required to drive a pile and for thirty minutes following the conclusion of pile driving.
The use of bubble curtains to reduce underwater sound from impact pile driving was considered prior to the start of the project but was determined to not be practicable. Use of a bubble curtain in a channel with substantial current
In-order to avoid impacts to least tern populations when they are most likely to be foraging and nesting, in-water work will be concentrated from October 1-April 1 or, depending on circumstances, to April 30. However, this limitation is in accordance with agreements between the Navy and FWS, and is not a requirement of this proposed IHA. All in-water construction activities would occur only from 45 minutes after sunrise to 45 minutes before sunset.
The use of a soft start procedure is believed to provide additional protection to marine mammals by warning or providing a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer operating at full capacity, and typically involves a requirement to initiate sound from the hammer at reduced energy followed by a waiting period. This procedure is repeated two additional times. It is difficult to specify the reduction in energy for any given hammer because of variation across drivers and, for impact hammers, the actual number of strikes at reduced energy will vary because operating the hammer at less than full power results in “bouncing” of the hammer as it strikes the pile, resulting in multiple “strikes.” The project will utilize soft start techniques for impact pile driving. We require an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at reduced energy, followed by a thirty-second waiting period, then two subsequent three strike sets. Soft start will be required at the beginning of each day's impact pile driving work and at any time following a cessation of impact pile driving of thirty minutes or longer; the requirement to implement soft start for impact driving is independent of whether vibratory driving has occurred within the prior thirty minutes.
We have carefully evaluated the Navy's proposed mitigation measures and considered their effectiveness in past implementation to preliminarily determine whether they are likely to effect the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals, (2) the proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and (3) the practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) we prescribe should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:
(1) Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
(2) A reduction in the number (total number or number at biologically important time or location) of individual marine mammals exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment only).
(3) A reduction in the number (total number or number at biologically important time or location) of times any individual marine mammal would be exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment only).
(4) A reduction in the intensity of exposure to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the severity of behavioral harassment only).
(5) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying particular attention to the prey base, blockage or limitation of passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.
(6) For monitoring directly related to mitigation, an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the Navy's proposed measures, as well as any other potential measures that may be relevant to the specified activity, we have preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking”. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for incidental take authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.
Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should improve our understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species in action area (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual responses to acute stressors, or impacts of chronic exposures (behavioral or physiological).
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) Population, species, or stock.
• Effects on marine mammal habitat and resultant impacts to marine mammals.
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Please see the Monitoring Plan (available at
• Monitor in-water construction activities, including the implementation of in-situ acoustic monitoring efforts to continue to measure SPLs from in-water construction and demolition activities not previously monitored or validated during the previous IHAs. This would include collection of acoustic data for activities and pile types for which sufficient data has not previously been collected, including for diamond saw cutting of caissons during fuel pier demolition. The Navy also plans to collect acoustic data for removal of 30-in steel piles via either vibratory extraction or torch cutting.
• Monitor marine mammal occurrence and behavior during in-water construction activities to minimize marine mammal impacts and effectively document marine mammals occurring within ZOI boundaries.
Collection of ambient underwater sound measurements in the absence of project activities has been concluded, as a rigorous baseline dataset for the project area has been developed.
The primary purpose of acoustic monitoring is to empirically verify modeled injury and behavioral disturbance zones (defined at radial distances to NMFS-specified thresholds; see “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” below). For non-pulsed sound, distances will continue to be evaluated for attenuation to the point at which sound becomes indistinguishable from background levels. Empirical acoustic monitoring data will be used to document transmission loss values determined from past measurements and to examine site-specific differences in SPL and affected ZOIs on an as needed basis.
Should monitoring results indicate it is appropriate to do so, marine mammal mitigation zones may be revised as necessary to encompass actual ZOIs. Acoustic monitoring will be conducted as specified in the approved Monitoring Plan. Please see Table 2-2 of the Plan for a list of equipment to be used during acoustic monitoring. Monitoring locations will be determined based on results of previous acoustic monitoring effort and the best professional judgment of acoustic technicians.
No acoustic data will be collected for 30-in steel piles as sufficient data has been collected for 36-in steel piles during previous years. For other activities, such as fender pile driving and demolition, the Navy will continue to collect in situ acoustic data to validate source levels and ZOIs. Environmental data would be collected including but not limited to: Wind speed and direction, air temperature, humidity, surface water temperature, water depth, wave height, weather conditions and other factors that could contribute to influencing the airborne and underwater sound levels (
The Navy will collect sighting data and behavioral responses to construction for marine mammal species observed in the region of activity during the period of activity. All observers will be trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring. The Navy will monitor the shutdown zone and disturbance zone before, during, and after pile driving as described under “Proposed Mitigation” and in the Monitoring Plan, with observers located at the best practicable vantage points. Notional monitoring locations are shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2 of the Navy's Plan. Please see that plan, available at
• MMOs would be located at the best vantage point(s) in order to properly see the entire shutdown zone and as much of the disturbance zone as possible.
• During all observation periods, observers will use binoculars and the naked eye to search continuously for marine mammals.
• If the shutdown zones are obscured by fog or poor lighting conditions, pile driving at that location will not be initiated until that zone is visible. Should such conditions arise while impact driving is underway, the activity would be halted.
• The shutdown and disturbance zones around the pile will be monitored for the presence of marine mammals before, during, and after any pile driving or removal activity.
One MMO will be placed in the most effective position near the active construction/demolition platform in order to observe the respective shutdown zones for vibratory and impact pile driving or for applicable demolition activities. Monitoring would be primarily dedicated to observing the shutdown zone; however, MMOs would record all marine mammal sightings beyond these distances provided it did not interfere with their effectiveness at carrying out the shutdown procedures. Additional land, pier, or vessel-based MMOs will be positioned to monitor the shutdown zones and the buffer zones, as notionally indicated in Figures 3-1 and 3-2 of the Navy's application.
During driving of steel piles, at least four additional MMOs (five total) will be deployed. Three of the five MMOs will be positioned in various pier-based locations around the new fuel pier to monitor the ZOIs. Two of these will be stationed at the north and south ends of the second deck of the new pier, and one MMO will be stationed on a second story balcony of a building on the existing pier. This building is scheduled to be demolished as part of the project. When the building is removed, a suitable secondary location with similar visibility will be used as an observation location. One MMO will be positioned in a boat at or near floating docks associated, and will focus on the furthest extent of the 450-m cetacean shutdown ZOI. The fifth MMO will be positioned on a second-story balcony of a Navy building on Ballast Point at the entrance to San Diego Bay, will focus on the furthest extent of the Level B ZOIs, and will monitor for marine mammals as they enter or exit San Diego Bay.
One additional team member—the “Command” position—will remain on the construction barge for the duration of monitoring efforts, and will log pile driving start and stop times. This
During driving of 24 x 30-in concrete fender piles, two MMOs and the additional “Command” team member will be on duty. The two MMOs would be stationed on the second deck of the new fuel pier in the most appropriate locations. During driving of the 16-in poly-concrete pile, one MMO and the “Command” position would be on duty. One MMO would be on duty during demolition using the diamond saw. During activity at the NMAWC site, at least two MMOs will be on duty and will be located at the most appropriate positions.
The MMOs will record all visible marine mammal sightings. Confirmed takes will be registered once the sightings data has been overlaid with the isopleths identified in Table 5 and visualized in Figures 6-2, 6-3, and 6-4 of the Navy's application, or based on refined acoustic data, if amendments to the ZOIs are needed. Acousticians on duty may be noting SPLs in real-time, but, to avoid biasing the observations, will not communicate that information directly to the MMOs. These platforms may move closer to, or farther from, the source depending on whether received SPLs are less than or greater than the regulatory threshold values. All MMOs will be in radio communication with each other so that the MMOs will know when to anticipate incoming marine mammal species and when they are tracking the same animals observed elsewhere.
If any species for which take is not authorized is observed by a MMO during applicable construction or demolition activities, all construction will be stopped immediately. If a boat is available, MMOs will follow the animal(s) at a minimum distance of 100 m until the animal has left the Level B ZOI. Pile driving will commence if the animal has not been seen inside the Level B ZOI for at least one hour of observation. If the animal is resighted again, pile driving will be stopped and a boat-based MMO (if available) will follow the animal until it has left the Level B ZOI.
Individuals implementing the monitoring protocol will assess its effectiveness using an adaptive approach. Monitoring biologists will use their best professional judgment throughout implementation and seek improvements to these methods when deemed appropriate. Any modifications to protocol will be coordinated between NMFS and the Navy.
We require that observers use approved data forms. Among other pieces of information, the Navy will record detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, the Navy will attempt to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidents of take. We require that, at a minimum, the following information be collected on the sighting forms:
• Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
• Construction activities occurring during each observation period;
• Weather parameters (
• Water conditions (
• Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals;
• Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile driving activity, and if possible, the correlation to measured SPLs;
• Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
• Description of implementation of mitigation measures (
• Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
• Other human activity in the area.
In addition, photographs would be taken of any gray whales observed. These photographs would be submitted to NMFS' West Coast Regional Office for comparison with photo-identification catalogs to determine whether the whale is a member of the WNP population.
A draft report would be submitted to NMFS within 45 calendar days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring, or sixty days prior to the issuance of any subsequent IHA for this project, whichever comes first. The report will include marine mammal observations pre-activity, during-activity, and post-activity during pile driving days, and will also provide descriptions of any behavioral responses to construction activities by marine mammals and a complete description of all mitigation shutdowns and the results of those actions. A final report would be prepared and submitted within thirty days following resolution of comments on the draft report. Required contents of the monitoring reports are described in more detail in the Navy's Acoustic and Marine Species Monitoring Plan.
The Navy complied with the mitigation and monitoring required under the previous authorizations for this project. Acoustic and marine mammal monitoring was implemented as required, with marine mammal monitoring occurring before, during, and after each pile driving event. During the course of Year 3 activities, the Navy did not exceed the take levels authorized under the IHA, and no animals were observed to occur within defined Level A harassment zones (please see the Navy's monitoring report for more details and below for further discussion).
The general objectives of the monitoring plan were similar to those described above for the Year 4 monitoring plan. For acoustic monitoring, the primary goal was to continue to collect in situ data towards validation of the acoustic ZOIs defined based on previous data collection efforts and using the transmission loss modeling effort conducted prior to the start of the project, and to continue collection of data on background noise conditions in San Diego Bay.
For acoustic monitoring associated with impact pile driving, continuous hydroacoustic monitoring systems were positioned at source (10 m from the pile) and opportunistically at predicted 160-dB Level B ZOIs. The far-field data collections were conducted at multiple locations during impact driving of 16-in concrete-filled poly piles and 24 x 30-in concrete fender piles,
SPLs of pile driving and demolition activities conducted during Year 2 fell within expected levels but varied spatially relative to the existing fuel pier structure and maximum source levels for individual piles (Table 4). For both vibratory and impact pile driving methods, results from the IPP (Year 1) and 2014/2015 production pile driving (Year 2) showed that transmission loss for piles driven in shallow water inside of the existing fuel pier was greater than piles driven in deep water outside of the existing pier. Differences in depth, sediment type, and existing in-water pier/wharf structures likely accounted for variations in transmission loss and measured differences in SPLs recorded at the shutdown and far-field locations for shallow versus deep piles of the same type and size. SPLs documented during vibratory and impact pile driving of shallow and deep steel pipe piles of the same size displayed notable differences in SPLs at shutdown range and to a lesser extent at source.
Measurements of impact driving of concrete piles conducted during Year 3 produced greater than expected SPLs at source. Differences in the subsurface conditions may account for the discrepancy, as a hardened layer is found at approximately 20-40 m below the mudline. SPLs documented during driving of 16-in piles generally displayed relatively low sound source levels during initial driving then appreciable increases observed once the piles interacted with this layer. Measurements from driving of the square concrete piles showed greatest sound source levels during initial impact pile driving which then decreased once the piles transitioned through the hardened layer. While source SPLs were observed to be greater than expected for both pile types, attenuation was also greater. Despite greater than expected source levels, the measured isopleth distances were similar to modeled predictions. Far-field impact pile driving results varied substantially between piles and locations for the various pile sizes, types, and locations. Both pile types were driven adjacent to the new fuel pier and source SPLs were subject to a wide variety of boundary conditions from recently driven piles and associated pier infrastructure. Further detail and discussion is provided in the Navy's report.
Ambient data collection was conducted in a manner consistent with NMFS' 2012 guidance for measurement of background sound. Ambient underwater and airborne sound level recordings were collected for three eight-hour days in December 2015, and April and May 2016. Ambient sound level recordings were collected in the absence of construction activities, and during typical construction time periods (7 a.m. to 6 p.m.), at locations that were between 400 and 750 m from each site. Sites were chosen to minimize boat traffic effects that might impact results. Data recorded during December 2015 and on April 5, 2016, were determined to be outliers due to anthropogenic corruption. The resulting median ambient SPL was 130.5 dB rms, similar to the value of approximately 128 dB rms resulting from previous measurement efforts.
Monitoring results are presented in Table 3. The Navy recorded all observations of marine mammals, including pre- and post-construction
There were considerably fewer individuals and sightings during the Year 3 IHA when compared to the same months during the Year 2 IHA, and only three species were observed. This may be due to environmental fluctuations as part of the on-going El Niño event. Water temperatures during Year 3 were cooler than during the same months during Year 2. Although the temperatures were still higher than the average water temperatures for the region prior to the current El Niño event, it shows that the event may have been dissipating. In addition, California sea lion strandings decreased. No evidently significant behavioral changes were reported.
There was one sighting of a dead California sea lion in the vicinity of the project. The dead animal was evaluated and deemed as having died as a result of factors unrelated to the project, likely due to the unusual mortality event currently ongoing in southern California waters. The observation was appropriately reported in accordance with the IHA and per protocols agreed-upon with NMFS' regional stranding coordinator.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “. . . any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].”
All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment resulting from vibratory and impact pile driving or demolition and involving temporary changes in behavior. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures (
Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of sound on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many animals are likely to be present within a particular distance of a given activity, or exposed to a particular level of sound. In practice, depending on the amount of information available to characterize daily and seasonal movement and distribution of affected marine mammals, it can be difficult to distinguish between the number of individuals harassed and the instances of harassment and, when duration of the activity is considered, it can result in a take estimate that overestimates the number of individuals harassed. In particular, for stationary activities, it is more likely that some smaller number of individuals may accrue a number of incidences of harassment per individual than for each incidence to accrue to a new individual, especially if those individuals display some degree of residency or site fidelity and the impetus to use the site (
The project area is not believed to be particularly important habitat for marine mammals, nor is it considered an area frequented by marine mammals (with the exception of California sea lions, which are attracted to nearby haul-out opportunities). Sightings of other species are relatively rare. Therefore, behavioral disturbances that could result from anthropogenic sound associated with these activities are expected to affect only a relatively small number of individual marine mammals, although those effects could be recurring over the life of the project if the same individuals remain in the project vicinity.
The Navy has requested authorization for the potential taking of small numbers of California sea lions, harbor seals, bottlenose dolphins, common dolphins, Pacific white-sided dolphins, Risso's dolphins, northern elephant seals, and gray whales in San Diego Bay and nearby waters that may result from pile driving during construction activities associated with the fuel pier replacement project described previously in this document. In order to estimate the potential incidents of take that may occur incidental to the specified activity, we typically first estimate the extent of the sound field that may be produced by the activity and then consider in combination with information about marine mammal density or abundance in the project area. In this case, we have acoustic data from project monitoring that provides empirical information regarding the sound fields likely produced by project activities. We first provide information on applicable sound thresholds for determining effects to marine mammals before describing the measured sound fields, the available marine mammal density or abundance information, and the method of estimating potential incidents of take.
We have historically used generic sound exposure thresholds (see Table 4) to determine when an activity that produces sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal such that a take by harassment might occur. These thresholds should be considered guidelines for estimating when harassment may occur (
Background information on underwater sound propagation and the calculation of range to relevant thresholds was provided in our
Impact and vibratory driving of steel pipe piles, impact driving of concrete and concrete-filled fiberglass piles, and demolition using different techniques (including diamond saw cutting and potentially vibratory removal) is planned for the next phase of work. Acoustic monitoring results that inform both the take estimates as well as the mitigation monitoring zones were reported in Table 2. Here, we present the calculated distances for predicted Level A and Level B ZOIs (Table 5). In some cases, the predicted zones have been modified for purposes of mitigation and/or monitoring implementation by adding buffers or by retaining a more conservative zone size based on prior assumptions. In all cases, proposed mitigation and/or monitoring zones are either equivalent to or larger than those indicated by relevant in situ data collection. See also Figures 6-2, 6-3, and 6-4 of the Navy's application for visual representation of the anticipated sound fields and their interaction with local topography.
Measured source levels for impact and vibratory driving of 30-in steel piles were 196 dB rms and 165 dB rms, respectively, but were based on only two measured piles. Here we use measured values for 36-in steel piles (204 dB rms and 174 dB rms) as conservative proxies. Background sound has been determined to be approximately 128 dB rms, and the distance at which continuous sound produced by vibratory driving would attenuate to background levels has been determined to be approximately 3,000 m. Although Year 2 measurements indicate that such attenuation may occur closer to 2,500 m, we conservatively retain the larger distance for estimating exposures. We conservatively use the vibratory pile installation value as proxy for vibratory pile removal, if it occurs.
For the two types of concrete fender piles, measured values from Year 3 acoustic monitoring are louder than might be expected from other available literature. We had previously assumed values of 176 dB rms and 173 dB rms for impact driving of 24 x 30-in concrete piles and 16-in concrete piles, respectively (Caltrans, 2012), but the Navy's acoustic monitoring program showed that these proxies were too low (see Table 3-2 and Appendix E of the Navy's monitoring report). The Navy proposed to conservatively use average maximum rms SPLs for these piles (see Table 6-4 of the Navy's application),
Although sea lions are known to haul-out regularly on man-made objects in the vicinity of the project site (see Figure 4-1 of the Navy's application), and harbor seals are occasionally observed hauled out on rocks along the shoreline in the vicinity of the project site, none of these are within the ZOIs for airborne sound, and we believe that incidents of take resulting solely from airborne sound are unlikely. The zones for sea lions are within the minimum shutdown zone defined for underwater sound and, although the zones for harbor seals are larger, they have not been observed to haul out as readily on man-made structure in the immediate vicinity of the project site. There is a possibility that an animal could surface in-water, but with head out, within one of the defined zones and thereby be exposed to levels of airborne sound that we associate with harassment, but any such occurrence would likely be accounted for in our estimation of incidental take from underwater sound.
We generally recognize that pinnipeds occurring within an estimated airborne harassment zone, whether in the water or hauled out, could be exposed to airborne sound that may result in behavioral harassment. However, any animal exposed to airborne sound above the behavioral harassment threshold is likely to also be exposed to underwater sound above relevant thresholds (which are typically in all cases larger zones than those associated with airborne sound). Thus, the behavioral harassment of these animals is already accounted for in these estimates of potential take. Multiple incidents of exposure to sound above NMFS' thresholds for behavioral harassment are not believed to result in increased behavioral disturbance, in either nature or intensity of disturbance reaction. Therefore, we do not believe that authorization of incidental take resulting from airborne sound for pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne sound is not discussed further here. Distances associated with airborne sound and shown in Table 5 are for reference only.
For all species, the best scientific information available was considered for use in the marine mammal take assessment calculations. Although various regional offshore surveys for marine mammals have been conducted, it is unlikely that these data would be representative of the species or numbers that may be encountered in San Diego Bay. However, the Navy has conducted a large number of ongoing site-specific marine mammal surveys during appropriate seasons (
Year 2 project monitoring showed even greater abundance of certain species, and we consider all of these data in order to provide the most up-to-date estimates for marine mammal abundances during the period of this proposed IHA. Although Year 3 project monitoring showed declines in marine mammal abundance in the vicinity of the project, we retain prior density estimates as a conservative measure for estimating exposure. Density information is shown in Table 7. These data are from dedicated line-transect surveys, required project marine mammal monitoring, opportunistic observations for more rarely observed species (see Figures 3-1 through 3-5 of the Navy's application), or the NMSDD.
The following assumptions are made when estimating potential incidences of take:
• All marine mammal individuals potentially available are assumed to be present within the relevant area, and thus incidentally taken;
• An individual can only be taken once during a 24-h period;
• The assumed ZOIs and days of activity are as shown in Table 6; and,
• Exposures to sound levels at or above the relevant thresholds equate to take, as defined by the MMPA.
In this case, the estimation of marine mammal takes uses the following calculation:
The ZOI impact area is estimated using the relevant distances in Table 5, assuming that sound radiates from a central point in the water column slightly offshore of the existing pier and
Where appropriate, we use average daily number of individuals observed within the project area during Navy marine mammal surveys converted to a density value by using the largest ZOI as the effective observation area. It is the opinion of the professional biologists who conducted these surveys that detectability of animals during these surveys, at slow speeds and under calm weather and excellent viewing conditions, approached one hundred percent.
There are a number of reasons why estimates of potential incidents of take may be conservative, assuming that available density or abundance estimates and estimated ZOI areas are accurate (aside from the contingency correction discussed above). We assume, in the absence of information supporting a more refined conclusion, that the output of the calculation represents the number of individuals that may be taken by the specified activity. In fact, in the context of stationary activities such as pile driving and in areas where resident animals may be present, this number more realistically represents the number of incidents of take that may accrue to a smaller number of individuals. While pile driving can occur any day throughout the period of validity, and the analysis is conducted on a per day basis, only a fraction of that time (typically a matter of hours on any given day) is actually spent pile driving. The potential effectiveness of mitigation measures in reducing the number of takes is typically not quantified in the take estimation process. For these reasons, these take estimates may be conservative. See Table 7 for total estimated incidents of take.
The NMSDD reports estimated densities for north and central San Diego Bay of 5.8 animals/km
Harbor seals are relatively uncommon within San Diego Bay. Previously, sightings in the Navy transect surveys of northern San Diego Bay were limited to individuals outside of the ZOI, on the south side of Ballast Point. These individuals had not been observed entering or transiting the project area and were believed to move from this location to haul-outs further north at La Jolla. Separately, marine mammal monitoring conducted by the Navy intermittently from 2010-14 had documented up to four harbor seals near Pier 122 (within the ZOI) at various times, with the greatest number of sightings during April and May. This information was used in previous IHA analysis, wherein we assumed that three harbor seals could be present for up to thirty days of the project. However, Year 2 project monitoring indicated an average abundance of 2.83 individuals per day in the project area. Animals were seen swimming as well as hauled out on rocks along the shoreline of NBPL. Although it is unknown whether this increase in abundance is a temporary phenomenon we use this new information on a precautionary basis as the best available information, and assume that this number of animals could be present on any day of the project. The NMSDD provides a maximum density estimate of 0.02 animals/km
The NMSDD provides a density of 0.115 animals/km
Coastal bottlenose dolphins can occur at any time of year in San Diego Bay. Numbers sighted during Navy transect surveys have been highly variable, ranging from zero to forty individuals (observed dolphins are assumed to have been of the coastal stock). An uncorrected average of 2.1 bottlenose dolphins was observed during recent Navy surveys (September 2012 through April 2014), although nineteen animals were observed in a single survey. As reported in the NMSDD, Dudzik
Common dolphins are present in the coastal waters outside of San Diego Bay, but have typically been observed in the bay only infrequently and were never seen during the Navy's surveys. However, the previously described observations of common dolphins in the project area during in 2014 prompted their inclusion in the second IHA, a decision supported by increased observations of common dolphins during Year 2. There have not been enough sightings of common dolphins in San Diego Bay to develop a reliable estimate specific to the project area. Sightings of long-beaked common dolphins are predominantly near shore, and have been documented during Navy training exercises just offshore and to the south of San Diego Bay, whereas those of short-beaked common dolphins extend throughout the coastal and offshore waters. The NMSDD provides an all-season density estimate of 0.1 animals/km
Pacific white-sided dolphins are not known from the project area, but were observed in the bay on several occasions during Year 2 monitoring (0.28 individuals per day). This information produces a density estimate slightly lower than that found in Hanser
Although no Risso's dolphins have not been observed in the project area, they are one of the more common species known from deeper waters nearby. Therefore, we use the regional density estimate from Hanser
Only one elephant seal has been observed in the project area, but given the increasing regional abundances for this species, we believe it reasonable to propose take authorization, and the regional density estimate found in Hanser
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
Construction and demolition activities associated with the pier replacement project, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) only, from underwater sounds generated from pile driving. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species are present in the ensonified zone when pile driving or removal is happening.
No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated given the nature of the activity and measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for these outcomes is minimized through the construction method and the implementation of the planned mitigation measures. For example, use of vibratory hammers does not have significant potential to cause injury to marine mammals due to the relatively low source levels produced and the lack of potentially injurious source characteristics. Impact pile driving produces short, sharp pulses with higher peak levels and much sharper rise time to reach those peaks. When impact driving is necessary, required measures (implementation of buffered shutdown zones) significantly reduce any possibility of injury. Given sufficient “notice” through use of soft start (for impact driving), marine mammals are expected to move away from a sound source that is annoying prior to its becoming potentially injurious. The likelihood that marine mammal detection ability by trained observers is high under the environmental conditions described for San Diego Bay (approaching one hundred percent detection rate, as described by trained biologists conducting site-specific surveys) further enables the implementation of shutdowns to avoid injury, serious injury, or mortality.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from past years of this project and other similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) (
In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the following factors: (1) The possibility of injury, serious injury, or mortality may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) the anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior; (3) the absence of any significant habitat within the project area, including rookeries, significant haul-outs, or known areas or features of special significance for foraging or reproduction; and (4) the presumed efficacy of the proposed mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level of least practicable impact. In addition, these stocks are not listed under the ESA or considered depleted under the MMPA. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activity will have only short-term effects on individuals. The specified activity is not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-level impacts. Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, we preliminarily find that the total marine mammal take from Navy's pier replacement activities will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
The number of incidents of take proposed for authorization for these stocks, with the exception of the coastal bottlenose dolphin (see below), would be considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations (see Table 7) even if each estimated taking occurred to a new individual. This is an extremely unlikely scenario as, for pinnipeds occurring at the NBPL waterfront, there will almost certainly be some overlap in individuals present day-to-day and in general, there is likely to be some overlap in individuals present day-to-day for animals in estuarine/inland waters.
The proposed numbers of authorized take for bottlenose dolphins are higher relative to the total stock abundance estimate and would not represent small numbers if a significant portion of the take was for a new individual. However, these numbers represent the estimated incidents of take, not the number of individuals taken. That is, it is likely that a relatively small subset of California coastal bottlenose dolphins would be incidentally harassed by project activities. California coastal bottlenose dolphins range from San Francisco Bay to San Diego (and south
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, we preliminarily find that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Therefore, we have determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
The Navy initiated informal consultation under section 7 of the ESA with NMFS Southwest Regional Office (now West Coast Regional Office) on March 5, 2013. NMFS concluded on May 16, 2013, that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, WNP gray whales. The Navy has not requested authorization of the incidental take of WNP gray whales and no such authorization is proposed, and there are no other ESA-listed marine mammals found in the action area. Therefore, no consultation under the ESA is required.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
We have reviewed the Navy's application for a renewed IHA for ongoing construction activities for 2015-16 and the 2014-15 monitoring report. Based on that review, we have determined that the proposed action is very similar to that considered in the previous IHAs. In addition, no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns have been identified. Thus, we have determined preliminarily that the preparation of a new or supplemental NEPA document is not necessary, and will, after review of public comments determine whether or not the existing EA and FONSI provide adequate analysis related to the potential environmental effects of issuing an IHA to the Navy. The 2013 NEPA documents are available for review at
As a result of these preliminary determinations, we propose to issue an IHA to the Navy for conducting the described pier replacement activities in San Diego Bay, for a period of one year from the date of issuance, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. The proposed IHA language is provided next.
This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
1. This Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) is valid from October 8, 2016, through October 7, 2017.
2. This IHA is valid only for pile driving and removal activities associated with the fuel pier replacement project in San Diego Bay, California.
3. General Conditions
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of the Navy, its designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of this IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking are the harbor seal (
(c) The taking, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the species listed in condition 3(b). See Table 1 for numbers of take authorized.
(d) The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or death of any of the species listed in condition 3(b) of the Authorization or any taking of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(e) The Navy shall conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, acoustic monitoring team, and Navy staff prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
4. Mitigation Measures
The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the following mitigation measures:
(a) For all pile driving, the Navy shall implement a minimum shutdown zone of 10 m radius around the pile. If a marine mammal comes within or approaches the shutdown zone, such operations shall cease. See Table 2 for minimum radial distances required for shutdown zones.
(b) The Navy shall shutdown activity as appropriate upon observation of any species for which take is not authorized. Activity shall not be resumed until those species have been observed to leave the relevant zone or until one hour has elapsed.
(c) The Navy shall deploy marine mammal observers as described below and as indicated in the Acoustic and Marine Species Monitoring Plan (Monitoring Plan; attached).
i. For all pile driving and applicable demolition activities, a minimum of one observer shall be stationed at the active pile driving rig in order to monitor the shutdown zones.
ii. For pile driving of 30-in steel piles, at least four additional observers shall be positioned for optimal monitoring of the surrounding waters. During impact driving of steel piles, one of these shall be stationed for optimal monitoring of the cetacean Level A injury zone (see Table 2), while others may be positioned at the discretion of the Navy for optimal fulfillment of both acoustic monitoring objectives and monitoring of the Level B harassment zone. During all other pile driving, at least one additional observer shall be deployed and may be positioned at the discretion of the Navy for optimal fulfillment of both acoustic monitoring objectives and monitoring of the Level B harassment zone.
iii. These observers shall record all observations of marine mammals, regardless of distance from the pile being driven, as well as behavior and potential behavioral reactions of the animals. Photographs must be taken of any observed gray whales.
iv. All observers shall be equipped for communication of marine mammal observations amongst themselves and to other relevant personnel (
(d) Monitoring shall take place from fifteen minutes prior to initiation of pile driving activity through thirty minutes post-completion of pile driving activity. Pre-activity monitoring shall be conducted for fifteen minutes to ensure that the shutdown zone is clear of marine mammals, and pile driving may commence when observers have declared the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals. In the event of a delay or shutdown of activity resulting from marine mammals in the shutdown zone, animals shall be allowed to remain in the shutdown zone (
(e) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone, all pile driving activities at that location shall be halted. If pile driving is halted or delayed due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity may not commence or resume until either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or fifteen minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal.
(f) Monitoring shall be conducted by qualified observers, as described in the Monitoring Plan. Trained observers shall be placed from the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown or delay procedures when applicable through communication with the equipment operator.
(g) The Navy shall use soft start techniques recommended by NMFS for impact pile driving. Soft start for impact drivers requires contractors to provide an initial set of strikes at reduced energy, followed by a thirty-second waiting period, then two subsequent reduced energy strike sets. Soft start shall be implemented at the start of each day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of impact pile driving for a period of thirty minutes or longer.
(h) Pile driving shall only be conducted during daylight hours.
5. Monitoring
The holder of this Authorization is required to conduct marine mammal monitoring during pile driving activity. Marine mammal monitoring and reporting shall be conducted in accordance with the Monitoring Plan.
(a) The Navy shall collect sighting data and behavioral responses to pile driving for marine mammal species observed in the region of activity during the period of activity. All observers shall be trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors, and shall have no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring.
(b) For all marine mammal monitoring, the information shall be recorded as described in the Monitoring Plan.
(c) The Navy shall conduct acoustic monitoring for representative scenarios of pile driving activity, as described in the Monitoring Plan.
6. Reporting
The holder of this Authorization is required to:
(a) Submit a draft report on all monitoring conducted under the IHA within 45 calendar days of the completion of marine mammal and acoustic monitoring, or sixty days prior to the issuance of any subsequent IHA for this project, whichever comes first. A final report shall be prepared and submitted within thirty days following resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS. This report must contain the informational elements described in the Monitoring Plan, at minimum (see attached), and shall also include:
i. Detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any.
ii. Description of attempts to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the
iii. Results of acoustic monitoring, including the information described in in the Monitoring Plan.
(b) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:
i. In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, Navy shall immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (301-427-8425), NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator (206-526-6550), NMFS. The report must include the following information:
A. Time and date of the incident;
B. Description of the incident;
C. Environmental conditions (
D. Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
E. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
F. Fate of the animal(s); and
G. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
i. In the event that Navy discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
The report must include the same information identified in 6(b)(i) of this IHA. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with Navy to determine whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to the activities are appropriate.
ii. In the event that Navy discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
7. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
We request comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for Navy's pier replacement activities. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on Navy's request for an MMPA authorization.
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Notice of availability for final programmatic environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.
The U.S. IOOS office, National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has finalized a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) which analyzed the potential environmental impacts associated with ocean observing activities including sensors and instrumentation; vessels (including personal watercraft) and sampling; autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV), gliders, and drifters; moorings, marine stations, buoys, and fixed arrays; High Frequency radar (HF radar); and sound navigation and ranging (sonar) and light detection and ranging (lidar) and prepared a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to the environmental resources within U.S. IOOS regions.
In parallel with the preparation of the draft and final PEA, IOOS initiated and completed a technical review consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Office of Habitat Conservation Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), regarding the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Furthermore, subsequent to extensive discussion with and training by NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR) under the National Marine Sanctuaries, Endangered Species and Marine Mammal Protection Acts, it has been determined that IOOS observing activities would have negligible or no impact to environmental resources under the proposed action. The IOOS proposed action provides a mitigation strategy to address any unique situations, on a site-specific basis, as more information becomes available.
The final PEA and signed FONSI are posted on the IOOS Web site at
Regina Evans, U.S. IOOS Program, 1315 East-West Highway, 2nd Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Silver Spring, MD 20910; Phone 240-533-9468; Fax 301-713-3281; Email
Observing activities support the core mission of U.S. IOOS: systematic provision of readily accessible marine environmental data and data products in an interoperable, reliable, timely, and user-specified manner to end-users/customers to serve seven critical and expanding societal needs: (1) Improve predictions of climate change and weather and their effects on coastal communities and the nation; (2) Improve the safety and efficiency of maritime operations; (3) More effectively mitigate the effects of natural hazards; (4) Improve national and homeland security; (5) Reduce public health risks; (6) More effectively protect and restore healthy coastal ecosystems; and (7) Enable the sustained use of ocean and coastal resources.
IOOS's conclusion of no significant impact is based on the best available scientific data and consultations with underwater acoustic experts and biologists from NMFS. Special emphasis was placed on the impacts to marine mammals, endangered species, and essential fish habitat. IOOS has adopted conservation recommendations from EFH and project design criteria (PDC), or best management practices, which
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 8, 2016.
Comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be submitted directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB, within 30 days of the notice's publication, by email at
Comments may also be mailed to: Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581 or by Hand Deliver/Courier at the same address.
A copy of the supporting statements for the collection of information discussed above may be obtained by visiting
Gary Martinaitis, Associate Director, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5209; email:
The total annual cost burden per respondent is estimated to be $38,500. The Commission based its calculation on a blended hourly wage rate of $55 for a Programmer and Compliance Manager.
44 U.S.C. 3501
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), Department of Defense (DoD).
Federal advisory committee meeting notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Government-Industry Advisory Panel. This meeting is open to the public.
The meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 23, 2016. Public registration will begin at 8:45 p.m. For entrance into the meeting, you must meet the necessary requirements for entrance into the Pentagon. For more detailed information, please see the following link:
Pentagon Library, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155. The meeting will be held in Room M1. The Pentagon Library is located in the Pentagon Library and Conference Center (PLC2) across the Corridor 8 bridge.
LTC Andrew Lunoff, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Acquisition), 3090 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3090, email:
Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting or seeking additional information about public access procedures, should contact LTC Lunoff, the committee DFO, at the email address or telephone number listed in the
Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (OPEPD), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 8, 2016.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Julie Warner, 202-453-6043.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy.
Notice of intent to grant exclusive patent license.
The Department of Energy (DOE) hereby gives notice that DOE intends to grant an exclusive license to practice the invention described and claimed in U.S. Patent Number 8,968,827 for “Methods of forming boron nitride” to TNT Ballistic Coating Technologies, Inc. having its principal place of business at Chicago, Illinois. The patent is owned by United States of America, as represented by DOE.
Written comments, objections, or nonexclusive license applications must be received at the address listed no later than August 24, 2016.
Comments, applications for nonexclusive licenses, or objections relating to the prospective exclusive license should be submitted through
Marianne Lynch, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property, U.S. Department of Energy, Room 6F-067, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585; Email:
This notice of intent to grant an exclusive license is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). The prospective exclusive license also complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
35 U.S.C. 209(c) gives DOE the authority to grant exclusive or partially exclusive licenses in federally-owned inventions where a determination is made, among other things, that the desired practical application of the invention has not been achieved, or is not likely to be achieved expeditiously, under a nonexclusive license. The statute and implementing regulations (37 CFR 404) require that the necessary determinations be made after public notice and opportunity for filing written comments and objections.
TNT Ballistic Coating Technologies has applied for an exclusive license to
Within 15 days of publication of this notice, any person may submit in writing to DOE's Assistant General Counsel for Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer Office (see contact information), either of the following, together with supporting documents:
(i) A statement setting forth reasons why it would not be in the best interest of the United States to grant the proposed license; or (ii) An application for a nonexclusive license to the invention, in which applicant states that it already has brought the invention to practical application or is likely to bring the invention to practical application expeditiously.
The proposed license would be exclusive, subject to a license and other rights retained by the United States, and subject to a negotiated royalty. DOE will review all timely written responses to this notice, and will grant the licenses if, after expiration of the 15-day notice period, and after consideration of any written responses to this notice, a determination is made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c) that the licenses are in the public interest.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Energy pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, is proposing to amend an information collection request with the Office of Management and Budget by adding an additional collection to an ICR that already includes two previously approved collections. The two previously approved collections address DOE's Plug-in Electric Vehicle (PEV) Scorecard, and the National Clean Fleets Partnership. The proposed new collection is entitled “Ride and Drive Surveys for PEV Showcases”. DOE's Clean Cities initiative has developed a three-part voluntary ride-and-drive survey to assist its coalitions and stakeholders in assessing the level of interest, understanding, and acceptance of PEVs and alternative fuel vehicles (AFV) by the purchasing public. The principal objective of the Survey is to provide DOE and stakeholders with an objective assessment and estimate of how ready the purchasing public is for PEVs, and to help DOE's Clean Cities coalitions prepare for the successful deployment of these vehicles. DOE intends the surveys to be completed by individuals who are participating in one of many ride-and-drive events.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DOE, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of DOE's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before October 11, 2016. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed below as soon as possible.
Written comments should be sent to: Desk Officer for the Department of Energy, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
And to Mr. Dennis Smith, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE-3V), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, or by fax at 202-586-1600, or by email at
Mr. Dennis Smith at the address listed above in
The amended information collection request contains (1) OMB No. 1910-5171; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Clean Cities Vehicle Programs; (3) Type of Review: Amended collection; (4) Purpose: As part of DOE's Office of Vehicle Technologies 2016 Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) awards, DOE is awarding entities funding to run PEV showcases where drivers can experience driving a variety of PEVs and learn about charging electric vehicles. These awards are 50 percent cost share awards, meaning that recipients of an award under this FOA must supply 50 percent of the funds to complete each awarded project. Projects undertaken pursuant to this FOA are expected to include a survey component related to potential vehicle driver behavior. Thus, the DOE Clean Cities program has developed an initiative, the Ride and Drive Surveys for PEV Showcases, that includes a three-part voluntary ride-and-drive survey to assist its coalitions and stakeholders in assessing the level of interest, understanding, and acceptance of AFVs by the purchasing public. The principal objective of the Surveys is to provide DOE and stakeholders with an objective assessment and estimate of how ready the purchasing public is for PEVs, and to help DOE's Clean Cities coalitions prepare for the successful deployment of these vehicles.
For the Ride and Drive Surveys for PEV Showcases collection, the effort will target public citizens who are participating in one of many Ride-and-Drive events. There are three phases to the Survey: (1) Pre Ride-and-Drive; (2) post Ride-and-Drive; and (3) a few months/some time later to discern if the respondent followed through with acquisition of a PEV or another AFV. Respondents would provide answers in the first two phases through a user-friendly paper survey and on-line survey, and in the third phase they would answer questions via an electronic interface, although a paper survey may be used for those lacking access to an electronic device or computer.
The Surveys' effort will rely on responses to questions the respondent chooses to answer. The multiple-choice will questions address the following topic areas: (1) Demographics; (2) Current vehicle background; (3) How they learned about ride and drive event; (3) Perceptions of PEVs before and after driving; (4) Post-drive vehicle experience; (5) Purchase expectations; (6) Follow-up survey subsequent behaviors; (7) Purchase information; (8) Barriers; and (9) Future intentions.
DOE expects a total respondent population for the amended collection (which would include the three collections) of approximately 16,250 respondents (an increase of 15,000 over the number of respondents for the two currently approved collections). Selecting the multiple choice answers in
(5) Type of Respondents: Public; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents for all three information collections: 16,250; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 16,300; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 28,250 (25,625 for PEV Scorecard, 125 for Clean Fleets Partnership, and 2,500 for the Ride and Drive Surveys for PEV Showcases); and (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: There is no cost associated with reporting and recordkeeping.
42 U.S.C. 13233; 42 U.S.C. 13252 (a)-(b); 42 U.S.C. 13255.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On July 28, 2016, the City of Farmington, NM filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed Animas Hydroelectric Project would have an installed capacity of 250 kilowatts (kW) and would be located at the end of Willet Ditch, the last 75 feet of which varies in depth from 5.6 feet to 10 feet. The Willet Ditch is used for municipal water supply and irrigation. The project would be located near the City of Farmington in San Juan County, New Mexico.
A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.
The deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM):
The above-referenced meetings will be held at: PJM Conference and Training Center, PJM Interconnection, 2750 Monroe Boulevard, Audubon, PA 19403.
The above-referenced meetings are open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at
The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact the following:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Drift Sand Wind Project, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 22, 2016.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Desert Wind Farm LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 22, 2016.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
On June 27-28, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission held a Commissioner-led technical conference to discuss issues related to competitive transmission development processes, including, but not limited to, the use of cost containment provisions, the relationship of competitive transmission development to transmission incentives, and other ratemaking and transmission planning and development issues.
All interested persons are invited to file post-technical conference comments on the questions listed in the attachment to this Notice. Commenters need not respond to all questions asked. Commenters should organize responses consistent with the numbering of the attached questions and identify to what extent their responses are generally applicable, or pertain to a particular transmission planning region. Commenters may reference material previously filed in this docket, including the technical conference transcript, but are encouraged to submit new or additional information rather than reiterate information that is already in the record. In particular, Commenters are encouraged, when possible, to provide examples in support of their answers. These comments are due on or before September 2, 2016.
For more information about this Notice, please contact:
1. How do public utility transmission providers in regions compare proposals with and without cost containment provisions for transmission facilities eligible to be selected in a regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation? Please provide examples. What, if any, guidance or requirements should the Commission provide with respect to the comparison of proposals with and without cost containment provisions?
2. What can public utility transmission providers in regions do to ensure there is sufficient transparency for transmission developers to understand: (a) How a proposal will be evaluated in advance of the proposal submission; (b) developments, if any, that occur during the evaluation process; and (c) the reasons the selection decision was made? Should cost containment provisions in all proposals, and not just winning proposals, be made known? What, if any, guidance or requirements should the Commission provide with respect to this issue?
3. Should there be standardization of cost containment provisions or exclusions of certain costs to facilitate comparison of proposals with differing cost containment provisions? If so, what role should the Commission and/or public utility transmission providers in regions play in pursuing standardization?
4. What quantitative and qualitative methods can public utility transmission providers in regions use to evaluate proposals with different cost containment provisions, such as cost caps with different exclusions or that cap different components of the revenue requirement?
1. Should the Commission have a role in evaluating the rate-related components of competing proposals for transmission facilities eligible to be selected in a regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation (
2. What types of performance-based rates could the Commission accept to reduce asymmetrical risk?
3. The Commission has accepted proposals to allow incumbent and non-incumbent transmission developers to recover, under certain circumstances, costs associated with developing transmission projects that are proposed but not selected in a regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation.
4. Which entities should monitor, verify, and/or enforce compliance with cost containment provisions of selected transmission facilities? What are effective ways for them to do so and what are the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches?
1. Should the Commission pre-approve any or all of the following incentives for transmission facilities selected in a regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation through competitive transmission development processes: 100 percent construction work in progress in rate base; regulatory asset treatment; or recovery of 100 percent of the cost of abandoned facilities?
2. If there are benefits to customers from risk mitigation measures that transmission developers use in competitive transmission development processes, should the Commission revise its incentive policy to encourage similar risk mitigation measures that may provide customer benefits for
3. In light of the emphasis that Order No. 1000 places on regional transmission planning, do the risks and challenges of a particular transmission project remain an appropriate focal point for incentives requested pursuant to Federal Power Act section 219? If not, what are the attributes that warrant incentives?
4. What, if any, changes are needed to the framework the Commission uses to evaluate return on equity adders and other transmission incentives for transmission projects that use cost containment provisions?
5. Order No. 1000 requires public utility transmission providers in regions to have an ex ante cost allocation method for transmission facilities selected in the regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation. To what extent does the ex ante cost allocation method reduce risks to transmission developers?
6. Transmission developers face at least two types of risks: risk associated with participation in the transmission planning processes and risk associated with developing a transmission project. The Commission's current incentive policies focus on the latter. Please comment on risks associated with participation in the transmission planning processes and indicate what, if any, changes to the planning processes could mitigate the risk.
7. Do public utility transmission providers in regions consider that a transmission developer may request and be awarded transmission incentives when evaluating transmission proposals and, if so, how? For example, how would public utility transmission providers in regions consider a proposal with a potential transmission incentive given that the incentive might or might not be granted? Should a competitive transmission development process clearly state whether, and, if so, how incentives should be part of a developer's proposal and how requests and grants of such incentives will be evaluated by the public utility transmission providers in the region? Is there an optimal time for submission of incentive requests to the Commission and for Commission decisions upon them?
1. What factors have contributed to the lack of development of interregional transmission facilities (
2. What would be the advantages and disadvantages to the use of common models and assumptions by public utility transmission providers in regions in their interregional coordination processes? Are there problems that such an approach would solve or create? If such common models and assumptions could be developed, how should they be developed and by which entity or entities?
3. Should the Commission revisit Order No. 1000's requirement that an interregional transmission facility be selected in the regional transmission plan of all transmission planning regions where the facility will be located before it is eligible for interregional cost allocation? Why or why not?
4. What reforms, if any, could the Commission adopt to facilitate the identification of shared interregional transmission needs?
5. Do interregional cost allocation methods accepted by the Commission, such as the “avoided cost only” method, impede interregional transmission coordination?
1. To maximize the benefits of competition, should the Commission broaden or narrow the type of transmission facilities that must be selected through competitive transmission development processes? If so, how?
2. Has the introduction of competition into the regional transmission planning processes led public utility transmission providers to focus more on developing local transmission facilities or other transmission facilities not subject to competitive transmission development processes?
3. Are there other competitive approaches compared to the existing competitive transmission development processes that could potentially reduce the time and cost to conduct the process, or the risk of litigation over proposal selection, but still benefit consumers? If so, what are the strengths and weaknesses of such approaches and could they be used in transmission planning regions in specified circumstances, for example, for transmission projects needed in the near-term to address reliability needs, in conjunction with existing competitive transmission development processes?
4. What types of information (please be specific) could be used to measure the impact of the Order No. 1000 reforms on transmission development? For example, what information could be used to evaluate whether the more efficient or cost-effective transmission facilities are being selected within and between transmission planning regions? How should that information be tracked and reported or posted? Should common metrics be developed for evaluation of the information?
5. How do the sponsorship model and competitive bidding model, respectively, and variations on these models, capture the benefits of competition, such as increased innovation and selection of the more efficient or cost-effective transmission facilities? What are the positive features and drawbacks of each model? How can their drawbacks be addressed?
6. Are changes to the Commission's current application of the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis needed to better accommodate nonincumbent transmission developers, in particular with respect to the identification of appropriate proxy groups? If so, what changes are necessary?
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Description: Notice of Termination of Small Generator Interconnection Service Agreement No. 316 of Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that in a preliminary, non-public investigation pursuant to 18 CFR part 1b, the staff of the Office of Enforcement of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) has preliminarily determined that National Energy & Trade, L.P. (National Energy) violated the Commission's Prohibition of Natural Gas Market Manipulation, 18 CFR 1c.1 (2016).
Staff alleges that National Energy violated 18 CFR 1c.1 by fraudulently trading physical basis at Texas Eastern M3 (Tetco M3) during the January 2012 bidweek to increase the value of its financial basis position. Specifically, staff alleges that National Energy accomplished this fraud by selling physical basis at Tetco M3 at arbitrarily low prices early in the morning to benefit a large short financial basis position acquired before bidweek, a large part of which it repurchased after making its physical basis sales. Staff also alleges that National Energy violated 18 CFR 1c.1 by fraudulently trading physical basis at Henry Hub during the April 2014 bidweek to increase the value of its financial exposure. Specifically, staff alleges that National Energy accomplished this fraud by trading physical basis after the close of the NYMEX solely to benefit National Energy's exposure to the Henry Hub Inside FERC index.
This Notice does not confer a right on third parties to intervene in the investigation or any other right with respect to the investigation.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Osborn Wind Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 22, 2016.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that in a preliminary, non-public investigation pursuant to 18 CFR part 1b, the staff of the Office of Enforcement of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) has preliminarily determined that David Silva (Silva) violated the Commission's Prohibition of Natural Gas Market Manipulation, 18 CFR 1c.1 (2016).
Staff alleges that Silva violated 18 CFR 1c.1 by fraudulently trading physical basis at Texas Eastern M3 (Tetco M3) during the January 2012 bidweek to increase the value of his financial basis position. Specifically, staff alleges that Silva accomplished this fraud by selling physical basis at Tetco M3 at arbitrarily low prices early in the morning to benefit a large short financial basis position acquired before bidweek, a large part of which he repurchased after making his physical basis sales.
This Notice does not confer a right on third parties to intervene in the investigation or any other right with respect to the investigation.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has notified EPA that it has adopted a series of amendments to its on-highway heavy-duty vehicle and engine regulations. The amendments to CARB's in-use compliance program align CARB's program with EPA's program in terms of measurement allowances during on-road testing (In-Use Amendments). The amendments to CARB's 2007 and subsequent model year (MY) regulation (2007 Amendments) are minor technical amendments regarding mathematical expression of emission results and certain compliance flexibilities. The amendments to CARB's truck idling requirements (Truck Idling Amendments) clarify that certain vehicles are exempt from the new vehicle requirements. By letter dated January 27, 2016, CARB submitted a
EPA has tentatively scheduled a public hearing concerning CARB's request on September 28, 2016, at 10 a.m. EPA will hold a hearing only if any party notifies EPA by September 21, 2016 to express interest in presenting the Agency with oral testimony. Parties wishing to present oral testimony at the public hearing should provide written notice to David Dickinson at the email address noted below. If EPA receives a request for a public hearing, that hearing will be held at the William Jefferson Clinton Building (North), Room 5528 at 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. If EPA does not receive a request for a public hearing, then EPA will not hold a hearing, and instead will consider CARB's request based on written submissions to the docket. Any party may submit written comments until November 1, 2016.
Any person who wishes to know whether a hearing will be held may call David Dickinson at (202) 343-9256 on or after September 21, 2016.
EPA will make available for in person inspection, at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, written comments received from interested parties, in addition to any testimony given at the public hearing. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1743. The reference number for this docket is EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0017.
EPA will make available an electronic copy of this Notice on the Office of Transportation and Air Quality's (OTAQ's) homepage (
Please note that due to differences between the software used to develop the documents and the software into which the documents may be downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc., may occur.
David Dickinson (6405J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 343-9256, Fax: (202) 343-2804, email address:
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0017, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
The
CARB's January 27, 2016, letter to the Administrator presents EPA with CARB's series of amendments related to the control of emissions from California on-road medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles. The In-Use Amendments include amendments adopted by CARB in 2011 that allow a measurement allowance of 0.006 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) when using portable emission measurement systems (PEMS) for on-road in-use testing of heavy-duty vehicles. The 2007 Amendments are minor technical amendments regarding mathematical expression of emission results and certain compliance flexibilities. These amendments specify the NOx emission standards to the correct number of significant digits (
Section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. 7543(a), provides:
No state or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this part. No state shall require certification, inspection or any other approval relating to the control of emissions from any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the initial retail sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment.
Section 209(b) of the Act requires the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, to waive application of the prohibitions of section 209(a) for any state that has adopted standards (other than crankcase emission standards) for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966, if the state determines that the state standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. California is the only state that is qualified to seek and receive a waiver under section 209(b). EPA must grant a waiver unless the Administrator finds that (A) the determination of the state is arbitrary and capricious, (B) the state does not need the state standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or (C) the state standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) of the Act. Previous decisions granting waivers of federal preemption for motor vehicles have maintained that state standards are inconsistent with section 202(a) if there is inadequate lead time to permit the development of the necessary technology giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that time period or if the federal and state test procedures impose inconsistent certification procedures.
If California amends regulations that were previously granted a waiver, EPA can confirm that the amended regulations are within the scope of the previously granted waiver. Such within-the-scope amendments are permissible without a full waiver review if three conditions are met. First, the amended regulations must not undermine California's determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. Second, the amended regulations must not affect consistency with section 202(a) of the Act. Third, the amended regulations must not raise any “new issues” affecting EPA's prior waivers.
First, EPA requests comment on whether the 2007 Amendments and the Truck Idling Amendments, each individually assessed, should be considered under the within-the-scope analysis or whether they should be considered under the full waiver criteria. Specifically, we request comment on whether the 2007 Amendments and the Truck Idling Amendments (1) undermine California's previous determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as comparable Federal standards, (2) affect the consistency of California's requirements with section 202(a) of the Act, and (3) raise any other “new issue” affecting EPA's previous waiver or authorization determinations.
For the In-Use Amendments and to the extent commenters believe the 2007 Amendments or the Truck Idling Amendments should be considered under the full waiver criteria, EPA invites comment under the following three criteria: Whether (a) California's determination that its motor vehicle emission standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards is arbitrary and capricious, (b) California needs such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and (c) California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are consistent with section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
The Agency will make a verbatim record of the proceedings. Interested parties may arrange with the reporter at the hearing to obtain a copy of the transcript at their own expense. EPA will keep the record open until November 1, 2016. Upon expiration of the comment period, the Administrator will render a decision on CARB's request based on the record of the public hearing, relevant written submissions, and other information that she deems pertinent.
Persons with comments containing proprietary information must distinguish such information from other comments to the greatest possible extent and label it as “Confidential Business Information” (CBI). If a person making comments wants EPA to base its decision in part on a submission labeled CBI, then a non-confidential version of the document that summarizes the key data or information should be submitted for the public docket. To ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the docket, submissions containing such information should be sent directly to the contact person listed above and not to the public docket. Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the submission when EPA receives it, EPA will make it available to the public without further notice to the person making comments.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has notified EPA that it has adopted a greenhouse gas emission regulation for new 2014 and subsequent model year on-road medium-and heavy-duty engines and vehicles (California Phase 1 GHG Regulation). This regulation aligns California's GHG emission standards and test procedures with the federal GHG emission standards and test procedures that EPA adopted in 2011. By letter dated January 29, 2016, CARB submitted a request that
EPA has tentatively scheduled a public hearing concerning CARB's request on September 28, 2016, at 10 a.m. EPA will hold a hearing only if any party notifies EPA by September 21, 2016 to express interest in presenting the Agency with oral testimony. Parties wishing to present oral testimony at the public hearing should provide written notice to David Dickinson at the email address noted below. If EPA receives a request for a public hearing, that hearing will be held at the William Jefferson Clinton Building (North), Room 5528 at 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20460. If EPA does not receive a request for a public hearing, then EPA will not hold a hearing, and instead will consider CARB's request based on written submissions to the docket. Any party may submit written comments until November 1, 2016.
Any person who wishes to know whether a hearing will be held may call David Dickinson at (202) 343-9256 on or after September 21, 2016.
EPA will make available for in person inspection, at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, written comments received from interested parties, in addition to any testimony given at the public hearing. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1743. The reference number for this docket is EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0179.
EPA will make available an electronic copy of this Notice on the Office of Transportation and Air Quality's (OTAQ's) homepage (
Please note that due to differences between the software used to develop the documents and the software into which the documents may be downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc., may occur.
David Dickinson (6405J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 343-9256, Fax: (202) 343-2804, email address:
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0179, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
The
CARB's January 29, 2016, letter to the Administrator presents EPA with CARB's requirements related to the control of greenhouse gas emissions from 2014 and subsequent MY California on-road medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles. The regulation establishes requirements applicable to new motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) exceeding 8,500 pounds and engines that power such motor vehicles, except for medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs) that are subject to California's Low Emission Vehicle Program.
Section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. 7543(a), provides:
No state or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this part. No state shall require certification, inspection or any other approval relating to the control of emissions from any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the initial retail sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment.
Section 209(b) of the Act requires the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, to waive application of the prohibitions of section 209(a) for any state that has adopted standards (other than crankcase emission standards) for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966, if the state determines that the state standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. California is the only state that is qualified to seek and receive a waiver under section 209(b). EPA must grant a waiver unless the Administrator finds that (A) the determination of the state is arbitrary and capricious, (B) the state does not need the state standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or (C) the state standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) of the Act. Previous decisions granting waivers of federal preemption for motor vehicles have maintained that state standards are inconsistent with section 202(a) if there is inadequate lead time to permit the development of the necessary technology giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that time period or if the federal and state test procedures impose inconsistent certification procedures.
EPA invites comment on CARB's request for a waiver for the California Phase 1 GHG regulation under the following three criteria: whether (a) California's determination that its motor vehicle emission standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards is arbitrary and capricious, (b) California needs such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and (c) California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are consistent with section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
The Agency will make a verbatim record of the proceedings. Interested parties may arrange with the reporter at the hearing to obtain a copy of the transcript at their own expense. EPA will keep the record open until November 1, 2016. Upon expiration of the comment period, the Administrator will render a decision on CARB's request based on the record of the public hearing, relevant written submissions, and other information that she deems pertinent.
Persons with comments containing proprietary information must distinguish such information from other comments to the greatest possible extent and label it as “Confidential Business Information” (CBI). If a person making comments wants EPA to base its decision in part on a submission labeled CBI, then a non-confidential version of the document that summarizes the key data or information should be submitted for the public docket. To ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the docket, submissions containing such information should be sent directly to the contact person listed above and not to the public docket. Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the submission when EPA receives it, EPA will make it available to the public without further notice to the person making comments.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office requests public nominations of scientific experts to form a Panel to review the draft EPA report entitled “Screening Methodologies to Support Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR).” This draft report describes newly developed screening methods designed to assess the risk to public health and the environment that would remain after stationary sources of hazardous air pollutants come into compliance with the EPA's Maximum Available Control Technologies (MACT) standards.
Nominations should be submitted by August 30, 2016 per the instructions below.
Any member of the public wishing further information regarding this Notice and Request for Nominations may contact the Designated Federal Officer. Nominators unable to submit nominations electronically as described below may contact the Designated Federal Officer for assistance. General information concerning the EPA SAB can be found at the EPA SAB Web site at
EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) has prepared a draft report entitled “Screening Methodologies to Support Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis.” The Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a two-stage regulatory process for addressing emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from stationary sources. In the first stage, the CAA requires the EPA to develop technology-based standards, known as Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, for categories of industrial sources. In the second stage, the EPA must review each MACT standard at least every eight years and revise them as necessary, taking into account developments in practices, processes and control technologies. EPA must also conduct an assessment of the health and environmental risks that remain after stationary sources come into compliance with the MACT standards. Periodically, the SAB is asked to review the methods that OAR uses to estimate risks as these methods evolve or as new methods are developed. Thus, OAR has requested the SAB to review EPA's draft report that describes newly enhanced screening methods designed to estimate the potential risks to public health and the environment that would remain after stationary sources of HAPs come into compliance with EPA's MACT standards. These include screening methods to estimate the potential for multi-pathway risks (
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 Dr. Shallal as indicated above in this notice. Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than August 30, 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 panel 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. In forming the expert panel, the SAB Staff Office will consider public comments on the Lists of Candidates, information provided by the candidates themselves, and background information independently gathered by the SAB Staff Office. Selection criteria to be used for panel 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 panels; and, (f) for the panel 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 Environmental Protection Agency Special Government Employees” (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 of opportunity for public hearing and comment.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has notified EPA that it has adopted amendments to its off-highway recreational vehicles (ORVR) regulation that establish new evaporative emission standards and associated test procedures for 2018 and subsequent model year OHRVs (OHRV Evaporative Emission Amendments). By letter dated February 26, 2016, CARB asked that EPA authorize these amendments pursuant to section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act. This notice announces that EPA has tentatively scheduled a public hearing to consider California's authorization request and that EPA is now accepting written comment on the request.
EPA has tentatively scheduled a public hearing concerning CARB's request on September 28, 2016. at 10 a.m. EPA will hold a hearing only if any party notifies EPA by September 21, 2016 to express interest in presenting the Agency with oral testimony. Parties wishing to present oral testimony at the public hearing should provide written notice to David Dickinson at the email address noted below. If EPA receives a request for a public hearing, that hearing will be held at the William Jefferson Clinton Building (North), Room 5528 at 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. If EPA does not receive a request for a public hearing, then EPA will not hold a hearing, and instead will consider CARB's request based on written submissions to the docket. Any party may submit written comments until November 1, 2016.
Any person who wishes to know whether a hearing will be held may call David Dickinson at (202) 343-9256 on or after September 21, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0181, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
EPA will make available for public inspection materials submitted by CARB, written comments received from any interested parties, and any testimony given at the public hearing. Materials relevant to this proceeding are contained in the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, maintained in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0181. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through
David Dickinson (6405J), Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 343-9256. Fax: (202) 343-2804. Email:
The California OHRV category encompasses a wide variety of vehicles, including off-road motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), off-road sport and utility vehicles, sand cars, and golf carts. CARB's OHRV Evaporative
By letter dated February 26, 2016, CARB submitted a request to EPA pursuant to section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) for authorization for the OHRV Evaporative Emission Amendments.
Section 209(e)(1) of the CAA prohibits states and local governments from adopting or attempting to enforce any standard or requirement relating to the control of emissions from certain types of new nonroad vehicles or engines. The Act also preempts states from adopting and enforcing standards and other requirements related to the control of emissions from other types of new nonroad vehicles or engines as well as non-new nonroad engines or vehicles. Section 209(e)(2), however, requires the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, to authorize California to adopt and enforce standards and other requirements relating to the control of emissions from such preempted vehicles or engines if California determines that California standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards. However, EPA shall not grant such authorization if it finds that (1) the determination of California is arbitrary and capricious; (2) California does not need such California standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; or (3) California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with [CAA section 209]. In addition, other states with air quality attainment plans may adopt and enforce such regulations if the standards and the implementation and enforcement procedures are identical to California's standards. On July 20, 1994, EPA promulgated a rule that sets forth, among other things, regulations providing the criteria, as found in section 209(e)(2), which EPA must consider before granting any California authorization request for new nonroad engine or vehicle emission standards.
(a) The Administrator will grant the authorization if California determines that its standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as otherwise applicable federal standards.
(b) The authorization will not be granted if the Administrator finds that any of the following are true:
(1) California's determination is arbitrary and capricious.
(2) California does not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.
(3) The California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 209 of the Act.
(c) In considering any request to authorize California to adopt or enforce standards or other requirements relating to the control of emissions from new nonroad spark-ignition engines smaller than 50 horsepower, the Administrator will give appropriate consideration to safety factors (including the potential increased risk of burn or fire) associated with compliance with the California standard.
In order to be consistent with section 209(a), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not apply to new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. To be consistent with section 209(e)(1), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not attempt to regulate engine categories that are permanently preempted from state regulation. To determine consistency with section 209(b)(1)(C), EPA typically reviews nonroad authorization requests under the same “consistency” criteria that are applied to motor vehicle waiver requests. Pursuant to section 209(b)(1)(C), the Administrator shall not grant California a motor vehicle waiver if she finds that California “standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with [section 202(a)]” of the Act. Previous decisions granting waivers and authorizations have noted that state standards and enforcement procedures are inconsistent with section 202(a) if: (1) There is inadequate lead time to permit the development of the necessary technology giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that time, or (2) the federal and state testing procedures impose inconsistent certification requirements.
In considering whether to grant authorizations for accompanying enforcement procedures tied to standards for which an authorization has already been granted, EPA addresses questions as to whether the enforcement procedures undermine California's determination that its standards are as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards, and whether the enforcement procedures are consistent with section 202(a).
EPA requests comment on whether the OHRV Evaporative Emission Amendments meet the criteria for an authorization. Specifically, we request comment on: (a) Whether CARB's determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards is arbitrary and capricious; (b) whether California needs such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; and (c) whether California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are consistent with section 209 of the Act.
If a hearing is held, the Agency will make a verbatim record of the proceedings. Interested parties may arrange with the reporter at the hearing to obtain a copy of the transcript at their own expense. Regardless of whether a public hearing is held, EPA will keep the record open until November 1, 2016. Upon expiration of the comment period, the Administrator will render a decision on CARB's request based on the record from the public hearing, if any, all relevant written submissions, and other information that she deems pertinent. All information will be available for inspection at the EPA Air Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0181.
Persons with comments containing proprietary information must distinguish such information from other comments to the greatest extent possible and label it as “Confidential Business Information” (CBI). If a person making comments wants EPA to base its decision on a submission labeled as CBI, then a non-confidential version of the document that summarizes the key data or information should be submitted to the public docket. To ensure that proprietary information is not
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), terminates, as dormant, certain docketed Commission proceedings. The Commission believes that termination of these proceedings furthers the Commission's organizational goals of increasing the efficiency of its decision-making, modernizing the agency's processes in the digital age, and enhancing the openness and transparency of Commission proceedings for practitioners and the public.
Effective August 9, 2016.
Lauren Wilson, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-1607 or by email at
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Order,
The full text of document DA 16-761 and copies of any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection and copying via ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Document DA 16-761 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at:
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
Document DA 16-761 does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
1. In document DA 16-761, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) terminates, as dormant, the proceedings listed on the Attachment hereto. CGB believes that termination of these proceedings furthers the Commission's organizational goals of increasing the efficiency of its decision-making, modernizing the agency's processes in the digital age, and enhancing the openness and transparency of Commission proceedings for practitioners and the public. In addition, on the basis of further evaluation, CGB leaves open two proceedings included in the
2. On February 4, 2011, the Commission released a Report and Order that,
3. Following the release of the
4. Based on CGB's review of the record received in response to the
5.
6. Upon publication of document DA 16-761 in the
7. The Commission's action does not require notice and comment and is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended.
The Commission will not send a copy of document DA 16-761 pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,
Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), and 4(j) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and (j), and § 0.141 of the Commission's rules, that the proceedings set forth in document DA 16-761 are TERMINATED.
The following consent agenda has been deleted from the list of items scheduled for consideration at the Thursday, August 4, 2016, Open Meeting and previously listed in the Commission's Notice of July 28, 2016. Items 1 and 2 have been adopted by the Commission.
The Commission will consider the following subjects listed below as a consent agenda and these items will not be presented individually:
Federal Election Commission.
Notice of filing dates for special election.
Ohio has scheduled a special primary election on September 13, 2016, to fill the vacancy on the November 8, 2016, general election ballot that was created by the withdrawal of the Democratic nominee Corey Foister.
Committees required to file reports in connection with the Special Primary Election on September 13, 2016, shall file a 12-day Pre-Primary Report.
Ms. Elizabeth S. Kurland, Information Division, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463; Telephone: (202) 694-1100; Toll Free (800) 424-9530.
All principal campaign committees of candidates who participate in the Ohio Special Primary Election shall file a 12-day Pre-Primary Report on September 1, 2016. (See chart below for the closing date for each report.)
Note that these reports are in addition to the campaign committee's regular quarterly filings. (See chart below for the closing date for each report).
Political committees filing on a quarterly basis in 2016 are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the
Committees filing monthly that make contributions or expenditures in connection with the Ohio Special Primary Election will continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule.
Additional disclosure information in connection with the Ohio Special Primary Election may be found on the FEC Web site at
Principal campaign committees, party committees and Leadership PACs that are otherwise required to file reports in connection with the special primary election must simultaneously file FEC Form 3L if they receive two or more bundled contributions from lobbyists/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that aggregate in excess of the $17,600 during the special election reporting periods. (See chart below for closing date of each period.) 11 CFR 104.22(a)(5)(v), (b).
On behalf of the Commission.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 2, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Prabal Chakrabarti, Senior Vice President) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2204. Comments can also be sent electronically to
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 2, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice for comment regarding the Federal Reserve proposal to extend with revision the clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act for the following information collection activity.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board or Federal Reserve) invites comment on a proposal to revise the debit card issuer survey (FR 3064a).
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), to approve of and assign OMB numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB number.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 11, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at:
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
The following information collection, which is being handled under this delegated authority, has received initial Board approval and is hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collection, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
In accordance with the statutory requirement, the Board will release aggregate or summary information from the survey responses. In addition, the Board will release, at the network level, the percentage of total number of transactions, the percentage of total value of transactions, and the average transaction value for exempt and not-exempt issuers obtained on the FR 3064b. The Board has determined to release this information both because it can already be determined mathematically based on the information the Board currently releases on average interchange fees and because the Board believes the release of such information may be useful to issuers and merchants in choosing payment card networks in which to participate and to policymakers in assessing the effect of Regulation II on the level of interchange fees received by issuers over time.
However, the remaining individual issuer and payment card information collected on these surveys can be kept confidential under exemption (b)(4) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) because staff has advised that, if released, this information would cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the survey respondents.
Definitions for variable and fixed costs would remain in the instructions.
The Board also proposes to make several clarifications throughout both surveys.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (William Spaniel, Senior Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-1521. Comments can also be sent electronically to
1.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than August 24, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning contractor use of interagency fleet management system vehicles. A notice was published in the
Submit comments on or before September 8, 2016.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
•
•
Ms. Mahruba Uddowla, Procurement Analyst, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, GSA, 703-605-2868 or email at
If it is in the best interest of the Government, the contracting officer may authorize cost-reimbursement contractors to obtain, for official purposes only, interagency fleet management system (IFMS) vehicles and related services. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 51.205 and the clause at FAR 52.251-2, Interagency Fleet Management System (IFMS) Vehicles and Related Services, are to be used in solicitations and contracts when a cost reimbursement contract is contemplated and the contracting officer may authorize the contractor to use IFMS vehicles and related services.
Before a contracting officer may authorize cost-reimbursement contractors to obtain IFMS vehicles and related services, the contracting officer must have, among other requirements:
• A written statement that the contractor will assume, without the right of reimbursement from the Government, the cost or expense of any use of the IFMS vehicles and services not related to the performance of the contract;
• Evidence that the contractor has obtained motor vehicle liability insurance covering bodily injury and property damage, with limits of liability as required or approved by the agency, protecting the contractor and the Government against third-party claims arising from the ownership, maintenance, or use of an IFMS vehicle; and
• Considered any recommendations of the contractor. The information is used by the Government to determine whether it is in the Government's best interest to authorize a cost-reimbursement contractor, for official purposes only, to use IFMS vehicles and related services.
Authorized contractors shall submit requests for IFMS vehicles and related services in writing to the appropriate GSA point of contact in accordance with the FAR. Contractors' requests for vehicles or related services must include:
• Two copies of the agency authorization;
• The number of vehicles and related services required and period of use;
• A list of employees who are authorized to request the vehicles or related services;
• A listing of equipment authorized to be serviced; and
• Billing instructions and address.
Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FPIC), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of request for comments regarding a new request for an OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a new information collection requirement regarding OMB Control No: 3090-XXXX; Permitting Notice of Initiation.
Submit comments on or before October 11, 2016.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-XXXX; Permitting Notice of Initiation by any of the following methods:
•
•
Angela Colamaria, Permitting Team Lead, at telephone 202-395-3708 or via email to
In December 2015, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act outlined a set of fundamental requirements designed to change the way federal government agencies carry out their permitting and environmental review responsibilities for major infrastructure projects. Section 41003(a)(1)(A) of the FAST Act states that a “project sponsor of a covered project shall submit to the Executive Director and the facilitating agency notice of the initiation of a proposed covered project.” The statute goes on to describe the required information to be contained in this notice of initiation.
In order to accommodate this statutory requirement, the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FPISC) has developed the Notice of Initiation form. The information collected via the Notice of Initiation form will be reviewed by the facilitating agency, as identified for the particular type of project under consideration, as well as the Executive Director of the FPISC in order to verify that the project in question qualifies to be considered a “covered project.” If the project outlined in the Notice of Initiation is accepted as a covered project, the project will be added to the online Permitting Dashboard and a series of steps will be taken by the facilitating agency and the Executive Director as outlined in Title XLI of the FAST Act.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary, whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning pollution prevention and right-to-know information. A notice was published in the
Submit comments on or before September 8, 2016.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Charles Gray, Procurement Analyst, Office of Acquisition Policy, GSA, 703-795-6328 or email
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) (42 U.S.C. 11001-11050) and the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA), (42 U.S.C. 13101-13109); and Executive Order 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade, dated March 25, 2015, require that Federal facilities maintain reports on hazardous materials and toxic chemicals and pollution prevention efforts. In keeping with this mandate, Federal contractors performing at a Federal facility must provide sufficient information to the Federal Government to ensure that the facility is compliant with the E.O., PPA, and EPCRA. This information collection is carried out by means of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.223-5, Pollution Prevention and Right-To-Know Information.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period; Withdrawal.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the withdrawal of the notice published under the same title on July 26, 2016 for public comment.
Effective August 9, 2016.
Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
On July 26, 2016 CDC published a notice in the
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
In May 2015, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) issued an alert regarding the first confirmed Zika virus infections in Brazil. Since then, CDC has been responding to increased reports of Zika and has assisted in investigations with PAHO and the Brazil Ministry of Health. The first regional travel notices for Zika in South America and Mexico were posted in December 2015. In December 2015, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a United States territory, reported its first confirmed locally transmitted Zika virus case. Cases of local transmission have recently been confirmed in two other U.S. territories, the United States Virgin Islands and American Samoa. As of April 6, 2016, U.S. territories had reported 351 locally acquired Zika cases and 3 travel-associated Zika cases to CDC. Of the 354 cases reported, 37 were in pregnant women. Zika has not been spread by mosquitoes in the continental United States. However, lab tests have confirmed Zika virus in travelers returning to the United States. These travelers have gotten the virus from mosquito bites and a few non-travelers got Zika through sex. With the recent outbreaks in the Americas, the number of Zika cases among travelers visiting or returning to the United States is increasing. CDC monitors and reports to the public cases of Zika, which will help improve our understanding of how and where Zika is spreading.
Zika virus is spread to people primarily through the bite of an infected Aedes species mosquito (A. aegypti and A. albopictus). Mosquitoes that spread Zika virus are aggressive daytime biters, but they can also bite at night. A pregnant woman can pass Zika virus to her fetus during pregnancy. CDC is studying how Zika affects pregnancies. Zika is linked to microcephaly, a severe birth defect that is a sign of incomplete brain development. Microcephaly is a condition where a baby's head is much smaller than expected. During pregnancy, a baby's head grows because the baby's brain grows. Microcephaly can occur because a baby's brain has not developed properly during pregnancy or has stopped growing after birth.
In February and March 2016, CDC used OMB emergency clearance procedures to initiate and expedite multiple urgently needed information collections in American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Brazil, and domestically within state, tribal, local, and territorial (STLT) jurisdictions. These procedures have allowed the agency to target and refine public health interventions to arrest ongoing spread of infection.
With this notice, the CDC is announcing its intention to seek OMB clearance to continue a Zika-related information collections a call center in CDC's Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to respond to inquiries on clinical care of persons potentially of interest for Zika virus infection beyond its current emergency expiration date [OMB Control No. 0920-1101, expiration date 8/31/16]. Respondents to this information collection include the general public, clinicians, and employees at STLT health departments.
These information collections will align with their legislative authority, Section 301 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241). There are no total costs to the respondents other than their time. The total annualized burden requested is 305 hours.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice, establishment of a public docket, request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.
The meeting will be held on September 20 and 21, 2016, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Hilton Washington, DC North/Gaithersburg, Grand Ballroom, 620 Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD 20877. The hotel's telephone number is 301-977-8900. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Evella Washington, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1535, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6683,
A notice in the
As a part of the classification process, FDA is seeking committee input on the indications for use, risks to health, and safety and effectiveness of these wound care products, and how they should be classified. They may be classified in class I (general controls), class II (special and general controls), or class III (premarket approval (PMA), requiring demonstration of safety and effectiveness for each product).
FDA believes some of these products may meet the definition of class II whereas others may meet the definition of class III in light of their intended use, composition, the extent of evidence of clinical benefit, and the risks they pose. For the subset of the these products that contain antibiotics, FDA appreciates the importance of appropriately addressing the risk of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in light of the increasingly significant national public health concern posed by AMR. FDA is also aware of differences in the claims made for some products even though they may be regulated in the same manner.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public on its Web site at least 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material will be available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document. The docket number is FDA-2016-N-2147. The docket will close on October 20, 2016. Comments received on or before September 1, 2016, will be provided to the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by the Agency.
For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact AnnMarie Williams at
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
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
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The invention listed below is owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and is available for licensing and/or co-development in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing and/or co-development.
Invention Development and Marketing Unit, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Mail Stop 9702, Rockville, MD 20850-9702.
Information on licensing and co-development research collaborations, and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by contacting: Attn. Invention Development and Marketing Unit, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Mail Stop 9702, Rockville, MD 20850-9702, Tel. 240-276-5515 or email
Technology description follows.
Researchers at the National Cancer Institute's Vaccine Branch used conserved elements (CEs) of the polypeptides Gag and Env as immunogenic compositions to induce an immune response to HIV-1 envelope polypeptides and Gag polypeptides. conserved elements (CEs) of the polypeptides Gag and Env as immunogenic compositions to induce an immune response to HIV-1 envelope polypeptides and Gag polypeptides. This invention is based, in part, on the discovery that administration of one or more polypeptides comprising CEs, separated by linkers and collinearly arranged, of HIV Env or Gag CE proteins can provide a robust immune response compared to administration of a full-length Env or Gag protein. The Env-CE DNA vaccines were tested in a rhesus macaque model and were able to induce a cellular and humoral immune response in this model whereas vaccination with the full length DNA did not produce the same effect.
A robust increase in immunity was observed when rhesus macaques were subjected to a prime-boost protocol. First, rhesus macaques were primed with Env-CE DNA and boosted with full length Env resulting in an observed increase in both the cellular and humoral responses. A further increase in immune response was observed from priming with CE and boosting with a combination of CE and full length DNA resulting in a significantly improved breadth of immune responses. These improved protocols may help solve the immunodominance problem observed in current protocols. This is considered a major obstacle for HIV vaccine development. The CE vaccines described by this invention have potential for use as prophylactic and therapeutic HIV vaccines.
• HIV vaccines
• Addresses two key hurdles faced by current HIV vaccines: sequence diversity of HIV and immunodominance.
• Induces cross-clade specific immune response.
• The prime-boost immunization regimen is not limited to HIV, but can be employed to improve the induction of immune responses to any subdominant epitopes (cellular or humoral) to increase breadth, magnitude and quality of the immune response.
HHS Reference #E-009-2016/0-US-01, corresponding to U.S. Provisional Patent App. #62/241,599, filed on October 14, 2015, entitled: Prime-Boost combination vaccine to Expand Breadth of Immunological Response.
HHS Reference #E-087-2015/0-PCT-02; corresponding to International Patent App. #PCT/US2016/032317; filed on May 13, 2016, entitled: Methods and Compositions for inducing an immune response using Conserved Element Constructs.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice
The invention listed below is owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and is available for licensing and/or co-development in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing and/or co-development.
Invention Development and Marketing Unit, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Mail Stop 9702, Rockville, MD, 20850-9702.
Information on licensing and co-development research collaborations, and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by contacting: Attn. Invention Development and Marketing Unit, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Mail Stop 9702, Rockville, MD, 20850-9702, Tel. 240-276-5515 or email
Technology description follows.
The technology is directed to methods of treating diseases characterized by demyelination (such as Multiple sclerosis), white matter injury, or conditions associated with myelin remodeling by administering an agent that inhibits cleavage of Neurofascin 155 or Caspr1. The agent could be a thrombin inhibitor, an agent that inhibits thrombin expression, an anti-thrombin antibody that specifically inhibits thrombin mediated cleavage of Neurofascin 155, a mutated version or fragment of Neurofascin 155 or Caspr1, antibodies to Neurofascin 155 or Caspr1.
The technology also includes methods of detecting remodeling of myelin by detecting changes in levels of Neurofascin 125 and Neurofascin 30 in a biological sample, such as central spinal fluid or blood.
Treatment of diseases characterized by white matter injury or myelin remodeling.
Monitoring the amount of or rate of remodeling of myelin to determine the efficacy of agents used demyelinating diseases.
The methods of detecting modification in the amount or rate of remodeling of myelin can be used to determine the efficacy of treatments of neurological disorders and are less expensive than other methods currently used.
PCT application, PCT/US2016/027776, filed April 15, 2016 entitled “Methods of Treating or Preventing Demyelination Using Thrombin Inhibitors and Methods of Detecting Demyelination Using Neurofascin 155”.
Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notice of Privacy Act system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to establish a new DHS system of records titled, “DHS/ICE-015 LeadTrac System of Records.” This new system of records is being created from a previously issued system of records, DHS/ICE 009-External Investigations SORN. 73 FR 75452 (Dec. 11, 2008). This system of records allows DHS to collect and maintain records gathered by and in the possession of U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit (CTCEU) and ICE field offices for appropriate enforcement action, used in the course of their duties in identifying, investigating, and taking enforcement action against foreign students, exchange visitors, and other non-immigrant visitors to the United States who overstay their period of admission or otherwise violate the terms of their visa, immigrant, or non-immigrant status (collectively, status violators) through the LeadTrac system. This SORN also allows DHS to collect information in LeadTrac about organizations such as schools, universities, and exchange visitor programs being investigated by CTCEU and information about individuals, including designated school officials (DSOs), and associates of suspected status violators.
Additionally, DHS/ICE is issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to exempt this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act, elsewhere in the
Submit comments on or before September 8, 2016.This new system will be effective September 8, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2016-0053 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general questions, please contact: Amber Smith, Privacy Officer, (202) 732-3300, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th Street SW., Mail Stop 5004, Washington, DC 20536, email:
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) proposes to establish a new DHS system of records titled, “DHS/ICE-015 LeadTrac System of Records.”
This record system allows DHS to collect and maintain information about foreign students, exchange visitors, and other non-immigrant visitors to the United States, as well as associated organizations and individuals, who overstay their period of admission or otherwise violate the terms of their visa, immigrant, or non-immigrant status (collectively, “status violators”). Using the LeadTrac information technology (IT) system, ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit (CTCEU) collects PII from key DHS databases and analyzes it to identify suspected status violators. This system of records contains records from Arrival and Departure Information System (ADIS), Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), Enforcement Integrated Database (EID/ENFORCE), TECS, Consular Consolidated Database (CCD), Computer—Linked Application Information Management System (CLAIMS 3), Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT), and from commercial databases and public sources. CTCEU will also use LeadTrac to collect information about organizations such as schools, universities, and exchange visitor programs being investigated by CTCEU, and information about individuals, including designated school officials (DSOs) and associates of suspected status violators.
ICE collects information in LeadTrac about suspected status violators and organizations to help enforce compliance with U.S. immigration laws. Specifically, the information is collected and used to support the following DHS activities: Investigating and determining immigration status of individuals; identifying fraudulent schools and/or organizations and the people affiliated with those schools or organizations; providing HSI and Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) with information to further investigate suspected status violators; and carrying out the required enforcement activity.
Some of the individuals about whom ICE collects information in LeadTrac, such as DSOs and associates of suspected status violators, may have lawful permanent resident (LPR) status or be U.S. citizens. CTCEU and Overstay Analysis Unit (OAU) personnel query a variety of DHS and non-DHS information systems and enter the results into LeadTrac to build a unified picture of an individual's entry/exit, visa, criminal, and immigration history, and will comparably process information about associated individuals and organizations. Using this assembled information, CTCEU personnel will determine which individuals and organizations warrant additional investigation for possible
Consistent with the Department's information sharing mission, information stored in the DHS/ICE-015 LeadTrac System of Records 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. In addition, DHS/ICE may share information with appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies consistent with the routine uses set forth in this system of records notice.
Additionally, DHS/ICE is issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to exempt this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act, elsewhere in the
The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate 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.
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. Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE)-015.
DHS/ICE-015 LeadTrac System of Records.
Unclassified; Law Enforcement Sensitive.
DHS/ICE maintains records at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Headquarters in Washington, DC and field offices. Specifically, all records are maintained in the LeadTrac information technology (IT) system, except an extract of records from the legacy LeadTrac system that is maintained in an archived electronic form and stored at the National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) Federal Records Center.
Categories of individuals covered by this system include: (1) Individuals who are suspected of overstaying their period of admission, have had their visa revoked, or otherwise violate the terms of their visa, immigrant, or non-immigrant status (suspected status violators). This includes foreign students, exchange visitors, dependents, and other visitors to the United States; (2) associates of suspected status violators, including family members and employers, who may include U.S. citizens; (3) Designated School Officials (DSOs) and other individuals involved in the operation of suspected status violators' institutions; and (4) Chief executives and legal counsel of Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)-certified schools, and designated exchange visitor sponsors.
(1) Biographic and other identifying information, to include but not limited to names, dates of birth, countries of birth, countries of citizenship, gender, Social Security number (SSN), financial information, and vehicle information;
(2) Travel-related data, such as passport and visa information and other information related to entry and exit of the United States;
(3) Education data, which may include program of study, school name, school type, school address, school telephone number, school code, enrollment information, Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) certification date, accreditation information, and school operating authority; and
(4) DHS immigration benefit applications data filed with U.S. Government agencies, and data concerning matriculation at a U.S. college or university, employment, civil litigation, and/or criminal history.
For a suspected status violator's associates and family members: Names, dates of birth, contact information, and other identifying numbers.
For school and exchange visitor officials: Names, SEVIS ID numbers, aliases, gender, dates of birth, countries of birth and citizenship, contact information, and identifying numbers, which may include, but are not limited to alien number and passport number.
Pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296, Nov. 25, 2002), the Secretary of Homeland Security has the authority to enforce numerous federal criminal and civil laws. These include, but are not limited to, laws residing in titles 8, 18, 19, 21, 22, 31, and 50 of the U.S.C. The Secretary delegated this authority to ICE in DHS Delegation Number 7030.2, Delegation of Authority to the Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Reorganization Plan Modification for the Department of Homeland Security (January 30, 2003).
LeadTrac is owned by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit (CTCEU). The purpose of this system is to identify and vet visitors to the United States who overstay their period of admission or otherwise violate the terms of their visa, immigrant or non-immigrant status. LeadTrac also vets, collects, and maintains information on organizations such as schools, universities, and exchange visitor programs being investigated by CTCEU.
Specifically, the information is collected and used to support the following DHS activities: Investigating and determining immigration status and criminal history information about individuals and carrying out the required enforcement activity; determining the likelihood of, or confirming a suspected violator's continued presence within the United States and assessing the associated risk level; identifying fraudulent schools and/or organizations and the people affiliated with those schools or organizations; and providing HSI and Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) with information to further investigate suspected status violators and carry out the required enforcement activity.
This system of records also supports the identification of potential criminal activity, immigration violations, and
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 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 disclosure 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 NARA or the 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 appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, international, or foreign law enforcement agencies or other appropriate authorities 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, rule, regulation, or order, 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 Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, foreign or international agencies, if the information is relevant and necessary to a requesting agency's decision concerning the hiring or retention of an individual, or the issuance, grant, renewal, suspension, or revocation of a security clearance, license, contract, grant, or other benefit; or if the information is relevant and necessary to a DHS decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit.
I. To Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, international, or foreign criminal, civil, or regulatory law enforcement authorities when the information is necessary for collaboration, coordination, and de-confliction of investigative matters, prosecutions, and/or other law enforcement actions to avoid duplicative or disruptive efforts and to ensure the safety of law enforcement officers who may be working on related law enforcement matters.
J. To international, foreign, intergovernmental, and multinational government agencies, authorities, and organizations in accordance with law and formal or informal international arrangements.
K. To Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, foreign government agencies or organizations, or international organizations, lawfully engaged in collecting law enforcement intelligence, whether civil or criminal, to enable these entities to carry out their law enforcement responsibilities, including the collection of law enforcement intelligence.
L. To an organization or individual in either the public or private sector, either 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, to the extent the information is relevant to the protection of life or property.
M. To third parties during the course of a law enforcement investigation to the extent necessary to obtain information pertinent to the investigation, provided disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the officer making the disclosure.
N. 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, when disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of DHS, or when disclosure is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of DHS's officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent the Chief Privacy Officer determines that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
None.
DHS/ICE stores records in this system electronically or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records may be stored on magnetic disc, tape, and digital media.
DHS/ICE may retrieve records by biographic information, identifying numbers, and by other key data elements contained in the system.
Records in this system are safeguarded in accordance with applicable rules and policies, including
Under the NARA-approved records retention schedule for LeadTrac, records must be retained for 75 years. ICE intends to request NARA approval to retain LeadTrac records for 25 years from the date the record was created. Under this schedule, records would be kept as active in LeadTrac for 20 years, and archived for an additional five-year period. After the 25-year period, the information would be destroyed or, if deemed necessary, retained further under a reset retention schedule.
Section Chief, Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit (CTCEU), Homeland Security Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 1515 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209.
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 ICE's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer or the Chief Privacy 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. While 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, the component(s) 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.
See “Notification procedure” above.
Individuals who wish to contest the accuracy of records in this system of records should submit these requests to the ICE Office of Information Governance and Privacy. Requests must comply with verification of identity requirements set forth in Department of Homeland Security Privacy Act regulations at 6 CFR 5.21(d). Please specify the nature of the complaint and provide any supporting documentation. By mail (please note substantial delivery delays exist): ICE Office of Information Governance and Privacy, 500 12th Street SW., Mail Stop 5004, Washington, DC 20536. By email:
Records are obtained from key DHS systems of records to include but not limited to:
• Arrival and Departure Information System (ADIS). 80 FR 72,081 (November 18, 2015).
• Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS). 75 FR 412 (January 5, 2010).
• Enforcement Integrated Database (EID/ENFORCE). 80 FR 24,269 (April 30, 2015).
• TECS (not an acronym). 73 FR 43,457 (July 25, 2008).
• Benefits Information Systems (BIS). 73 FR 56,596 (September 29, 2008).
• Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT). 72 FR 31,080 (June 5, 2007).
Records are also obtained from the U.S. Department of State's Consular Consolidated Database (CCD) (77 FR 65,245 (Oct. 25, 2012)), commercial databases, and public sources.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4); (d); (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), (e)(8); (f); and (g). Additionally, the Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I); and (f). When a record received from another system has been exempted in that source system under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) or (k)(2), DHS will claim the same exemptions for those records that are claimed for the original primary systems of records from which they originated and claims any additional exemptions set forth here.
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 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
To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the notice.
Stan Houle, Office of Multifamily Housing Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10139, Washington, DC 20410, telephone 202-708-3054. (This is not a toll-free number.) Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access these numbers through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
The President's Climate Action Plan calls on Federal agencies to rapidly increase investments in energy productivity, eliminate energy waste, ramp up efficiency standards, and deploy the tools and technology needed to build a new energy economy. The residential building sector is responsible for fully 21 percent of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions. Utility costs (energy and water) account for around 22 percent of public housing operating budgets and a similar share in the assisted housing sector. HUD spends an estimated $6.4 billion annually to cover the costs of utilities in its public and assisted housing programs.
HUD is committed to creating energy-efficient, water-efficient, and healthy housing as part of a broader effort to foster the development of inclusive, sustainable, and resilient communities. Investments in energy-efficiency and water-efficiency pay dividends by improving occupant comfort, reducing tenant turnover, stabilizing operating costs, alleviating taxpayer burden, preserving affordable housing, ensuring disaster resilience, and mitigating climate change. As such, the Office of Multifamily Housing Programs in HUD's Office of Housing has taken several steps to encourage greater energy and water efficiency in multifamily housing, including:
• Updating and standardizing the utility allowance methodology for assisted properties that must submit annual documentation of utility allowances (estimated 70 percent of portfolio);
• Offering incentives to multifamily owners and management agents who have joined the Better Buildings Challenge, set a goal of reducing energy and/or water use by 20 percent within 10 years, and established themselves as leaders in the field with respect to energy and/or water efficiency;
• Providing access to capital to make energy improvements by implementing changes to the Federal Housing Administration's (FHA) underwriting standards in the Multifamily Accelerated Processing Guide (MAP Guide) to allow greater loan proceeds from standard offerings, supporting products such as the Fannie Mae Green Preservation Plus loan, and affirming how owners may use reserve for replacement funds to make energy and/or water improvements;
• Lowering annual multifamily mortgage insurance premiums for energy-efficient properties (those committed to achieving an industry-recognized green building standard and to maintaining energy performance in the top 25 percent of multifamily buildings nationwide);
• Developing and implementing a standardized Capital Needs Assessment suite of online tools (CNA e-Tool) available (later in 2016) for free to assist borrowers with submitting standard information to HUD, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and others;
• Developing a “pay for success” demonstration program under which the Department will execute budget-neutral, performance-based agreements that result in a reduction in energy or water costs. Recent legislation authorized HUD to implement this pilot from FY 2016 to FY 2019 in up to 20,000 units of multifamily buildings participating in the PBRA, Sec. 202 and Sec. 811 programs; and
• Publishing guidance on utilizing Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing with HUD-assisted and FHA-insured properties.
While HUD has a vested interest in eliminating energy and water waste in the assisted housing stock and stabilizing operating costs in both the insured and assisted housing stocks, to ensure that taxpayer investments in multifamily housing are viable for the long-term, the Office of Multifamily Housing Programs is currently unable to effectively analyze the energy and water use patterns, improvement potential, and investment needs of properties in the assisted and insured portfolios.
In 2003 and 2008, the Harvard Graduate School of Design
Though obstacles remain, utility benchmarking is rapidly becoming quicker, easier, more automated, and more integrated as it becomes an industry-standard best practice. In September 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed a new feature for its free, web-based tool called ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager, which allows users to calculate an energy-efficiency rating or “benchmarking score” for most multifamily developments. Benchmarking scores developed through ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager are officially known as ENERGY STAR Scores. These scores are available for multifamily housing properties of 20 units or more. A score of 50 indicates energy performance consistent with the national median, while 100 represents a top performer, and a score of at least 75 may make buildings eligible for ENERGY STAR certification.
Utility benchmarking helps building owners to understand their buildings' energy and water performance, allowing them to detect malfunctioning equipment and billing errors, prioritize operational and capital improvements, verify the return on those investments, and plan future budget needs. Indeed, the practice of utility benchmarking leads to significant improvements in building performance. Based on analysis of more than 35,000 buildings covered by newly established local energy benchmarking laws, EPA found an average energy use reduction of seven percent between 2008 and 2011.
In addition to the direct benefits to building owners, the sharing of utility benchmarking data allows government policymakers and funding providers (in this case, HUD acts as both) to account for utility expenditures, plan future budget needs, develop efficiency incentive programs, offer targeted technical assistance, and verify the return on these investments. For over 30 years, HUD has been promoting energy- and water-efficiency work in the public and assisted housing stocks through financial incentives, technical assistance, and pledge programs. However, utility benchmarking and data sharing will allow HUD for the first time to use robust information to direct those financial incentives, technical assistance, and pledge programs to the areas of greatest need, opportunity, and success.
Utility consumption and cost tracking by a building owner is the first step of utility benchmarking, and multiple approaches to this are available. The most direct method is to request whole-building utility data directly from the utility provider(s), covering the sum of owner-paid and tenant-paid accounts. When that is not possible, building owners may collect utility data for owner-paid accounts simply by compiling the information from their electronic or paper utility bills into a spreadsheet or web-based tool like ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager. Some utility providers offer easy downloads of this information directly from their Web sites.
Building owners may then collect utility data for tenant-paid accounts either by requesting the information directly from tenants in accordance with existing lease provisions, or, in some cases, by submitting individual tenant-data release forms to the utility provider. Once received, this utility data should be added to the spreadsheet or web-based tool to offer a complete picture of the whole-building utility consumption and cost. If using ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager, (OMB 2060-0347) the software will then automatically calculate a variety of useful metrics, such as the Site and Source Energy Use Intensity (EUI), Site Water Use Intensity (WUI), ENERGY STAR Score for Energy, and ENERGY STAR Score for Water. With this information, building owners are empowered to make more strategic decisions.
Cities across the country have enacted utility benchmarking and data sharing ordinances that ask commercial and multifamily building owners to track and disclose energy and/or water usage. Each program has unique building size requirements and different disclosure procedures.
At this time and with this notice, HUD is proposing limited requirements for utility benchmarking and data sharing, in order to balance the need to institute contemporary best practices and strategically manage the housing portfolio with the burden presented to building owners of adopting a new reporting requirement. Whereas an increasing number of state and local laws require utility benchmarking on an annual basis, HUD is proposing “spot-check” utility benchmarking on a less frequent basis. And whereas state and local benchmarking laws generally require utility benchmarking based on whole-building data, HUD intends to accept metrics developed with sampled tenant-paid utility data when whole building data are not available. Together, this will allow building owners to begin practicing utility benchmarking while the market continues to build support for more integration and automation of this best practice.
Over time, the Department will use the scores, along with EUI and WUI metrics, to see if energy and water efficiency is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same in the multifamily portfolio. The Office of Multifamily Housing Programs will use the information to assess energy and/or water efficiency needs and opportunities in the portfolio. Benchmarking data may also be used to inform the development of new policy initiatives, financial incentives, technical assistance, and pledge programs. Energy benchmarking will become more valuable over time as multiple years of energy consumption data are available.
To build a foundation of awareness and data concerning the current building performance of the multifamily building stock, as well as to guide and spur energy- and water-efficiency investments in multifamily housing, HUD proposes, through this notice, to require owners of covered property types to provide HUD's Office of Multifamily Housing Programs with the following metrics for each property when completing several types of property transactions: Site and Source
Site EUI represents a property's energy use per square foot of gross floor area, expressed in thousand British thermal units per square foot (kBTU/ft
There are a few exceptions to the stated information collection requirements. Only properties that have been in existence for at least 12 months and that include 20 housing units or more are eligible to receive an Energy Star Score for Energy or Water, and so these two metrics will not be required for ineligible properties. Properties with less than 20 units are encouraged to submit EUI and WUI data, but will not be not required to submit this analysis to HUD.
Additionally, for the purposes of this basic information collection effort, the Office of Multifamily Housing Programs will accept metrics calculated using either whole building data or a combination of whole owner-paid utility data and sampled tenant-paid utility data. It is important to understand, however, that metrics calculated with less than whole building data are not accepted by EPA for the purposes of Energy Star certification. If choosing to use sampled tenant-paid utility data, owners must meet or exceed the standards outlined in this document.
Finally, for the Department's purposes, the required metrics will be considered valid for three years beyond the 12-month period upon which they are based. For example, an ENERGY STAR Score based on 2015 calendar-year utility data and generated in 2016 will be accepted by HUD for any required reporting under this notice in 2016, 2017, and 2018. An ENERGY STAR Score based on 2013 calendar-year data and generated in 2016 will be accepted by HUD for any required reporting under this notice in 2016, but not in 2017. At this point, the owner would need to provide more recent data. The frequency is intended to align benchmarking with information collection efforts undertaken by HUD-assisted properties in preparing their utility allowance.
• Section 202 Project Rental Assistance Contracts (PRAC),
• Section 811 PRAC and Project Rental Assistance (PRA) contracts,
• Section 8 Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contracts,
• Multifamily Housing properties insured under Sections 223(a)(7), 223(f), 221(d)(4), 220, 230, and 241(a)).
• For HUD assisted properties with a utility allowance, at the time of a triennial utility allowance baseline calculation;
• For HUD-assisted properties where there is no utility allowance, every third year at the time of financial statement submission;
• Prior to issuance of new FHA mortgage insurance under Sections 223(a)(7), 223(f), nd 241(a));
• With a Capital Needs Assessment submission required by the Office of Asset Management and Portfolio Oversight in HUD's Office of Multifamily Housing Programs on a 10-year cycle;
• With a Capital Needs Assessment submission required as part of any enforcement action.
HUD is seeking feedback on the required submission points and will finalize the schedule with the issuance of an Office of Housing Notice.
As noted above, owners seeking a covered property transaction will be required to enter data into ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager and submit to HUD the referenced metrics created by the free web tool. ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager has the ability to automatically generate reports from user data and offers a variety of standard formats. HUD will use an existing standard, machine readable report format within Portfolio Manager for HUD owners to utilize in preparing its benchmarking submission. The format may be modified over time but content will remain consistent with the scope of this Notice. In addition to submission of data in the specified format, owners may be asked to “share” their benchmarking report with the HUD account in Portfolio Manager to allow the Department to centrally access data.
Use of whole building data, including owner-paid utilities, plus all tenant paid utilities (even if aggregated), is preferable when completing utility benchmarking analysis, as it will give the most accurate snapshot of a building's performance. However, to calculate the referenced metrics in Portfolio Manager, some owners may need to or choose to use a combination of whole owner-paid utility data and a sample of tenant-paid utility data as an alternative to using all of the above. Please be reminded that metrics calculated with less than whole building data are not accepted by EPA for the purposes of ENERGY STAR certification. If choosing to use sampled tenant-paid utility data, owners must meet or exceed the minimum sampling standards associated with existing Office of Multifamily Housing utility data reporting requirements (see table of related PRA collections below). Accepting the sampling already in use by anticipated respondents will significantly minimize the additional administrative burden benchmarking requirements imposes on those respondents.
When completed in conjunction with a HUD utility allowance baseline analysis, the benchmarking analysis should generally include (or exceed) the number of units sampled for the utility
HUD will consider requests for additional time to submit benchmarking data from owners who experience unexpected delays in obtaining sufficient sample data from utility providers or encounter unforeseeable technical difficulties.
The Department has identified seven discrete tasks associated with the process for obtaining and submitting Portfolio Manager scores, which are listed in the matrix below. Based on a review of other Paperwork Reduction Act submissions, the Department believes that the PRA requirements for seven of those eight tasks are addressed in other submissions, also identified in the matrix below. Burden hours calculated for the proposed Information Collection reflect only the time associated with generating a report in Portfolio Manager and submission to HUD. While the Department recognizes that respondents may spend significant time on preparatory activities in order to submit the data requested under this collection, the burden hours for those tasks are already accounted for under other approved collections.
The utility benchmarking requirement described in this notice will apply when executing any covered transaction beginning 90 days after OMB approval of the PRA request, and not sooner than January 1, 2017. The first scheduled submission date for a majority of assisted-housing respondents is estimated to occur in 2019. HUD will alert owners of the effective date for reporting requirements through an Office of Housing Notice, issued after OMB issues a Notice of Action approving this PRA collection.
Burden hours take into account other existing information collections covering the assembly of utility information by impacted properties and the use of ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager, these include: HUD's Multifamily Housing Utility Allowance submission (OMB 2502-0352), HUD's Tenant Eligibility and Rent Procedures (OMB 2502-0204), CNAe requirements (OMB 2502-0505), HUD's Multifamily Project Applications Green Building Program component (OMB-2502-0029)and ENERGY STAR Certification (OMB- 2060-0347) by the Environmental Protection Agency.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the 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
Ivery W. Himes, Director, Office of Single Family Asset Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Ivery W. Himes at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Himes.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct activities intended to enhance the survival of endangered or threatened species. Federal law prohibits certain activities with endangered species unless a permit is obtained.
We must receive any written comments on or before September 8, 2016.
Send written comments by U.S. mail to the Regional Director, Attn: Carlita Payne, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 5600
Carlita Payne, (612) 713-5343.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
A permit granted by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with U.S. endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes, enhancement of propagation or survival, or interstate commerce (the latter only in the event that it facilitates scientific purposes or enhancement of propagation or survival). Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following applications. Please refer to the permit number when you submit comments. Documents and other information the applicants have submitted with the applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
The proposed activities in the requested permits qualify as categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act, as provided by Department of the Interior implementing regulations in part 46 of title 43 of the CFR (43 CFR 46.205, 46.210, and 46.215).
We seek public review and comments on these permit applications. Please refer to the permit number when you submit comments. Comments and materials we receive in response to this notice are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed above in
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We provide this notice under section 10 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The United States Forest Service (USFS) has filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requesting that the Secretary of the Interior withdraw approximately 82.5 acres of National Forest System land from location and entry under the United States mining laws, but not leasing under the mineral leasing laws for a 20-year term to protect the recreational resources at the Spanish Creek Campground located in the Plumas National Forest, California. Publication of this notice temporarily segregates the land for up to 2 years from location and entry under the United States mining laws while the withdrawal application is being processed. This notice also gives the public an opportunity to comment on the withdrawal application and to request a public meeting. The land has been and will remain open to such forms of disposition allowed by law on National Forest System land and to mineral leasing, except for location and entry under the mining laws.
Comments and public meeting requests must be received by November 7, 2016.
Comments and meeting requests should be sent to the Mt. Hough Ranger District, 39696 Hwy. 70, Quincy, California 95971, Attention: Leslie Edlund, or emailed to
Elizabeth Easley, BLM California State Office, 916-978-4673 or Donna Duncan, Plumas National Forest, Mt. Hough Ranger District, 530-283-7614 during regular business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, except holidays. 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 either of the above individuals. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The applicant is the USFS. The application requests the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw, subject to valid existing rights, the following described land from location and entry under the United States mining laws, but not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws, for a period of 20 years to protect the recreational resources within the Spanish Creek Campground.
The area described contains approximately 82.5 acres in Plumas County.
The purpose of the requested withdrawal is to protect the recreational resources at the Spanish Creek Campground. The use of a right-of-way, interagency agreement, or cooperative agreement would not adequately constrain non-discretionary uses and would not provide adequate protection of the Federal investment of funds and infrastructure at the Spanish Creek Campground. There are no suitable alternative sites because the land described is the only land that encompasses the Spanish Creek Campground.
No additional water rights need to be acquired to fulfill the purpose of the requested withdrawal.
Records related to the application may be examined by contacting either of the individuals listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us to withhold your personally identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Notice is hereby given that an opportunity for a public meeting is afforded in connection with the application for withdrawal. All interested persons who desire a public meeting for the purpose of being heard on the application for withdrawal must submit a written request to the BLM California State director no later than November 7, 2016. If the authorized officer determines that a public meeting will be held, a notice of the time and place will be published in the
For a period until August 9, 2018, subject to valid existing rights, the land described in this notice will be segregated from location and entry under the United States mining laws, unless the application is denied or canceled or the withdrawal is approved prior to that date. Licenses, permits, cooperative agreements, or discretionary land use authorizations of a temporary
The application will be processed in accordance with the regulations set forth in 43 CFR part 2300.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (National Park Service, NPS) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. We summarize the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. This information collection is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2016. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
You must submit comments on or before September 8, 2016.
Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Lee Dickinson, Special Park Uses National Manager, at
Under 54 U.S.C. 100101 (National Park Service Act Organic Act), we must preserve America's natural wonders unimpaired for future generations, while also making them available for the enjoyment of the visitor. Meeting this mandate requires that we balance preservation with use. Maintaining a good balance requires both information and limits. In accordance with regulations at 36 CFR parts 1-7, 13, 20, and 34, we issue permits for special park uses.
Special park uses cover a wide range of activities including, but not limited to, special events, First Amendment activities, grazing and agricultural use, commercial filming, still photography, construction and vehicle access. Permits are issued for varying amounts of time based on the requested use, but generally do not exceed 5 years. A new application must be submitted in order to request the renewal of an existing permit.
The information we collect in the special use applications allows park managers to determine if the requested use is consistent with the laws and NPS regulations referenced above and with the public interest. The park manager must also determine that the requested activity will not cause unacceptable impacts to park resources and values. The information is collected from respondents using the following NPS forms:
On February 3, 2016, we published in the
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
August 3, 2016.
Nathanael N. Comly (202) 205-3174), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
Effective March 7, 2016, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the final phase of the subject investigations.
The Commission's supplemental schedule is as follows: The deadline for filing party comments on Commerce's final determinations is August 9, 2016; the staff report in the final phase of these investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record on August 23, 2016; and a public version will be issued thereafter.
Supplemental party comments may address only Commerce's final determinations regarding imports from Brazil, India, Korea, Russia, and the United Kingdom. These supplemental final comments may not contain new factual information and may not exceed five (5) pages in length.
For further information concerning these investigations see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on July 5, 2016, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of The Chamberlain Group, Inc. of Elmhurst, Illinois. A letter supplementing the complaint was filed on July 19, 2016. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain access control systems and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,319 (“the ’319 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,196,611 (“the ’611 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 7,339,336 (“the ’336 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Office of Docket Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2016).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain access control systems and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-4, 7-12, 15, and 16 of the ’319 patent; claims 1, 10-12, and 18-25 of the ’611 patent; and claims 7, 11-13, 15-23, and 34-36 of the ’336 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: The Chamberlain Group, Inc., 845 Larch Avenue, Elmhurst, IL 60126.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd., Unit B-F 24/F CDW Building, 388 Castle Peak Road, Tusen Wan, New Territories, Hong Kong.
Techtronic Industries North America, Inc., 303 International Circle, Suite 4900, Hunt Valley, MD 21030.
One World Technologies Inc., 1428 Pearman Dairy Road, Anderson, SC 29625.
OWT Industries Inc., 225 Pumpkintown Highway, Pickens, SC 29671.
Ryobi Technologies, Inc., 1428 Pearman Dairy Road, Anderson, SC 29625.
Et Technology (Wuxi) Co., Ltd., Xiqun Road (East Section), Xinqu Meicun Industrial Cluster Zone, Wuxi 214112, Zhejiang China.
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Judicial Conference of the United States, Advisory Committees on the Federal Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and Criminal Procedure.
Notice of proposed amendments and open hearings.
The Advisory Committees on the Federal Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and Criminal Procedure have proposed amendments to the following rules and forms:
The text of the proposed rules and the accompanying Committee Notes are posted on the Judiciary's Web site at:
All written comments and suggestions with respect to the proposed amendments may be submitted on or after the opening of the period for public comment on August 15, 2016, but no later than February 15, 2017. Written comments must be submitted electronically, following the instructions provided on the Web site. All comments submitted will be available for public inspection.
Public hearings are scheduled to be held on these proposed amendments as follows:
• Appellate Rules in Washington, DC, on October 17, 2016, and in Denver, Colorado, on January 20, 2017;
• Bankruptcy Rules in Pasadena, California, on January 24, 2017;
• Civil Rules in Washington, DC, on November 3, 2016, in Phoenix, Arizona, on January 4, 2017, and in Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas, on February 16, 2017;
• Criminal Rules in Phoenix, Arizona, on January 4, 2017, and in Washington, DC, on February 24, 2017.
Those wishing to testify must contact the Secretary by email at:
Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Secretary, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE., Suite 7-240, Washington, DC 20544, Telephone (202) 502-1820.
The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its regulations (45 CFR part 503.25) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of open meetings as follows:
11:00 a.m.—Issuance of Proposed Decisions in claims against Libya.
All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: Patricia M. Hall, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW., Suite 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-6975.
On August 3, 2016, the Department of Justice lodged proposed modifications to a Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in
The original Consent Decree was entered on October 3, 2003, and resolved civil claims under the Clean Air Act at a number of the Defendant's electric-generating facilities located in Virginia and West Virginia. The Consent Decree imposed various pollution control requirements on Defendant's facilities, including requirements related to particulate matter emissions at Defendant's Bremo Power Station located in Fluvanna County, Virginia. The Consent Decree also required the Defendant to fund certain environmental mitigation projects, including certain projects identified by the co-plaintiff States of Connecticut and Virginia.
The parties to the Consent Decree have agreed to certain modifications set forth in three amendments to the Consent. The first amendment modifies the Consent Decree's particulate matter provisions to recognize that the Bremo Power Station no longer burns coal or fuel oil and instead is fired exclusively with natural gas. The second and third amendments modify the Consent Decree's environmental mitigation project provisions to allow the co-plaintiff States of Connecticut and Virginia to use remaining environmental mitigation funds on additional environmental mitigation projects.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed modifications to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed amendments to the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $3.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget.
Notice of availability.
This notice announces the availability of the 2016 OMB 2 CFR 200, Subpart F—Compliance Supplement (Supplement). The notice also offers interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 2016 Supplement. The 2016 Supplement adds two new programs and deletes five programs (that are completed under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act). It has also been updated for program changes and technical corrections. In addition, it removed two compliance requirements from the standard list of such requirements: Davis Bacon (formerly compliance requirement D) and Real Property Acquisition and Relocation Assistance (formerly compliance requirement K). Part 3—Compliance Requirements is divided into two subparts. Subpart 3.1 is applicable to awards issued prior to December 26, 2014 and Subpart 3.2 is applicable to awards issued on or after December 26, 2014.
The two added programs are:
• CFDA 14.225—Community Development Block Grants/Special Purpose Grants/Insular Areas to form a cluster with CFDA 14.218, Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants.
• CFDA 14.272—National Disaster Resilience Competition (CDBG-NDR) to form a cluster with CFDA 14.269, Hurricane Sandy Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Grants (CDBG-DR).
The five deleted programs are:
• CFDA 11.010—Community Trade Adjustment Assistance.
• CFDA 14.880—Family Unification Program (FUP).
• CFDA 14.257—Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) (Recovery Act Funded).
• CFDA 81.128, Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program.
• CFDA 84.388—School Improvement Grants, Recovery Act.
Part 6—Internal Control was updated to be consistent with the guidance contained in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States (Green Book) and the “Internal Control Integrated Framework” (revised in 2013), issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).
Highlights of the changes in the Appendices include the following:
• Appendix II provides the dates of agencies' issuance of final rules or regulatory actions to implement the OMB Guidance in 2 CFR 200.
• Appendix III lists the National Single Audit Coordinators and Single Audit Key Management Liaisons, along with their distinct roles for answering public inquiries regarding Single Audit.
• A list of changes to the 2016 Supplement can be found at Appendix V.
Due to its length, the 2016 Supplement is not included in this Notice.
The 2016 Supplement supersedes the 2015 Supplement and will apply to audits of fiscal years beginning after June 30, 2015. All comments on the 2016 Supplement must be in writing and received by October 31, 2016. Late comments will be considered to the extent practicable. We received no comments on the 2015 Supplement.
Due to potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, we encourage respondents to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt. We cannot guarantee that comments mailed will be received before the comment closing date.
Electronic mail comments may be submitted to:
Comments may be mailed to Gilbert Tran, Office of Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Room 6025, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Comments may also be sent through
The 2016 Supplement is available online on the OMB home page at
Recipients and auditors should contact their cognizant or oversight agency for audit, or Federal awarding agency, as appropriate under the circumstances. The Federal agency contacts are listed in Appendix III of the Supplement. Subrecipients should contact their pass-through entity. Federal agencies should contact Gilbert Tran, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Federal Financial Management, at (202) 395-3052.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 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.
All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication.
All comments should be addressed to Ms. Frances Teel, JF000, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Frances Teel, NASA PRA Clearance Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., JF000, Washington, DC 20546,
This collection provides a means by which NASA contractors can voluntarily and confidentially report any safety concerns or hazards pertaining to NASA programs, projects, or operations.
The current, paper-based reporting system ensures the protection of a submitters anonymity and secure
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-90, issued to the Tennessee Valley Authority, for operation of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1. The amendment allows Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, to irradiate up to 1792 tritium producing burnable absorber rods (TPBARs) per cycle. This amendment revised Technical Specification (TS) 4.2.1, “Fuel Assemblies,” to increase the maximum number of TPBARs allowed in the core from 704 to 1792. The amendment also revised Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.5.1.4 of TS 3.5.1, “Accumulators,” and SR 3.5.4.3 of TS 3.5.4, “Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST),” to delete outdated information related to the tritium production program.
August 9, 2016.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0162 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Jeanne Dion, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1349, email:
The NRC has issued Amendment No. 107 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-90 issued to the Tennessee Valley Authority, which revised the TSs for operation of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, located in Rhea County, TN. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16159A057. Documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. The amendment was effective as of the date of its issuance.
The amendment revised TS 4.2.1, “Fuel Assemblies,” to increase the maximum number of TPBARs allowed in the core from 704 to 1792. The amendment also revised SR 3.5.1.4 of TS 3.5.1, “Accumulators,” and SR 3.5.4.3 of TS 3.5.4, “Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST),” to delete outdated information related to the tritium production program.
The application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in chapter I of title 10 of the
A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment and Opportunity for Hearing in connection with this action was published in the
The Commission has prepared an Environmental Assessment, published on July 5, 2016 (81 FR 43656), related to the action and has concluded that an environmental impact statement is not warranted because there will be no environmental impact attributable to the action beyond that which has been predicted and described in the Commission's Final Environmental Statement for the facility dated December 1978 and supplemented in April 1995.
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated March 31, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated April 28, 2015, May 27, 2015, June 15, 2015, September 14, 2015, September 25, 2015, November 30, 2015, December 22, 2015, December 29, 2015, February 22, 2016, and March 31, 2016 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML15098A446, ML15124A334, ML15147A611, ML15167A359, ML15258A204, ML15268A568, ML15335A468, ML16054A661, ML16004A161, ML16053A513, and ML16095A064, respectively).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. 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.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
This Notice will be published in the
On July 11, 2016, Investors Exchange LLC (“IEX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed minor rule violation plan (“MRVP” or “Plan”) pursuant to Section 19(d)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange's MRVP specifies the rule violations which will be included in the Plan and will have sanctions not exceeding $2,500. Any violations which are resolved under the MRVP would not be subject to the provisions of Rule 19d-1(c)(1) of the Act,
The Exchange proposed to include in its MRVP the procedures included in Exchange Rule 9.216(b) (“Procedure for Violation Under Plan Pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 19d-1(c)(2)”) and the violations to be included in Exchange Rule 9.218 (“Violations Appropriate for Disposition Under Plan Pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 19d-1(c)(2)”).
Under the proposed MRVP, violations of the following rules would be appropriate for disposition under the MRVP: Rule 2.160(p)—Continuing Education Requirements; Rule 4.511 (General Requirements related to books and records requirements); Rule 4.540 (Furnishing of records); Rule 5.110 (Supervision); Rule 8.220 (Automated submission of trading data requested); Rule
Once IEX's MRVP is effective, the Exchange will provide to the Commission a quarterly report for any actions taken on minor rule violations under the MRVP. The quarterly report will include: The Exchange's internal file number for the case, the name of the individual and/or organization, the nature of the violation, the specific rule provision violated, the sanction imposed, the number of times the rule violation occurred, and the date of the disposition.
The Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the public interest, the protection of investors, and otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as required by Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the Act,
In declaring the Exchange's MRVP effective, the Commission in no way minimizes the importance of compliance with Exchange rules and all other rules subject to the imposition of sanctions under Exchange Rule 9.216(b). The Commission believes that the violation of an SRO's rules, as well as Commission rules, is a serious matter. However, Exchange Rule 9.216(b) provides a reasonable means of addressing violations that do not rise to the level of requiring formal disciplinary proceedings, while providing greater flexibility in handling certain violations. The Commission expects that the Exchange will continue to conduct surveillance and make determinations based on its findings, on a case-by-case basis, regarding whether a sanction under the MRVP is appropriate, or whether a violation requires formal disciplinary action.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule11.21, Retail Orders, to conform to the rules of Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”) and Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. (“BYX”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
In early 2014, the Exchange and its affiliate, Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”), received approval to effect a merger (the “Merger”) of the Exchange's parent company, Direct Edge Holdings LLC, with Bats Global Markets, Inc., the parent of BZX and BYX (together with BZX, EDGA, and EDGX, the “BGM Affiliated Exchanges”).
First, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (a) of Rule 11.21 to include definitions of “Retail Member Organization” and “Retail Order”. Subparagraph (a)(1) would define a Retail Member Organization or RMO as “a Member
Second the Exchange proposes to consolidate paragraphs (b) and (c) to Exchange Rule 11.21 into a single paragraph (b) entitled, Retail Member Organization Qualifications and Application. Proposed Exchange Rule 11.21(b) would be identical to BYX Rule 11.24(b) and BZX Rule 11.25(b). Rule 11.21(b)(1) would state that to qualify as a Retail Member Organization, a Member must conduct a retail business or route retail orders on behalf of another broker-dealer. For purposes of Exchange Rule 11.21, conducting a retail business shall include carrying retail customer accounts on a fully disclosed basis.
Current Rule 11.21(b) requires Members to submit a signed written attestation, in a form prescribed by the Exchange, that they have implemented policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that substantially all orders designated by the Member as a Retail Order comply with the above requirements. The Exchange proposes to incorporate this requirement into proposed Rule 11.21(b)(2). Proposed subparagraph (b)(2) of Rule 11.21 would state that, to become a Retail Member Organization, a Member must submit: (A) An application form; (B) supporting documentation, which may include sample marketing literature, Web site screenshots, other publicly disclosed materials describing the Member's retail order flow, and any other documentation and information requested by the Exchange in order to confirm that the applicant's order flow would meet the requirements of the Retail Order definition; and (C) an attestation, in a form prescribed by the Exchange, that substantially all orders submitted as Retail Orders will qualify as such under this Rule. Proposed Rule 11.21(b)(2) is identical to BYX Rule 11.24(b)(2) and BZX Rule 11.25(b)(2).
The Exchange also proposes to adopt subparagraphs (b)(3), (4), (5), and (6) to Rule 11.21, the content of which is identical to BYX Rule 11.24(b)(3), (4), (5), and (6) and BZX Rule 11.25(b)(3), (4), (5), and (6). Subparagraph (b)(3) would state that after an applicant submits the application form, supporting documentation, and attestation, the Exchange shall notify the applicant of its decision in writing. Subparagraph (b)(4) would allow a disapproved applicant to: (A) Request an appeal of such disapproval by the Exchange as provided in proposed paragraph (d) discussed below; and/or (B) reapply for Retail Member Organization status 90 days after the disapproval notice is issued by the Exchange. Subparagraph (b)(5) permits a Retail Member Organization to voluntarily withdraw from such status at any time by giving written notice to the Exchange.
Current Rule 11.21(c) states that if the Member represents Retail Orders from another broker-dealer customer, the Member's supervisory procedures must be reasonably designed to assure that the orders it receives from such broker-dealer customer that it designates as Retail Orders meet the definition of a Retail Order. The Member must: (i) Obtain an annual written representation from each broker-dealer customer that sends it orders to be designated as Retail Orders that entry of such orders as Retail Orders will be in compliance with the requirements specified by the Exchange; and (ii) monitor whether its broker-dealer customer's Retail Order flow continues to meet the applicable requirements. The Exchange proposes to incorporate this requirement into proposed Rule 11.21(b)(6). Proposed subparagraph (b)(6) of Rule 11.21 would state that a Retail Member Organization must have written policies and procedures reasonably designed to assure that it will only designate orders as Retail Orders if all requirements of a Retail Order are met. Such written policies and procedures must require the Member to: (i) Exercise due diligence before entering a Retail Order to assure that entry as a Retail Order is in compliance with the requirements of this Rule; and (ii) monitor whether orders entered as Retail Orders meet the applicable requirements. Subparagraph (b)(6) would also require that if a Retail Member Organization does not itself
Proposed paragraph (c) to Rule 11.21 would set forth the process for disqualifying a Member as a Retail Member Organization and is identical to BYX Rule 11.24(c) and BZX Rule 11.25(c). Subparagraph (c)(1) would state that if a Retail Member Organization designates orders submitted to the Exchange as Retail Orders and the Exchange determines, in its sole discretion, that such orders fail to meet any of the requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of Rule 11.21 above, the Exchange may disqualify a Member from its status as a Retail Member Organization. Subparagraph (c)(2) would state that the Exchange shall determine if and when a Member is disqualified from its status as a Retail Member Organization. When disqualification determinations are made, the Exchange shall provide a written disqualification notice to the Member. Subparagraph (c)(3) would state that a Retail Member Organization that is disqualified may: (A) Appeal such disqualification as provided in paragraph (d) discussed below; and/or (B) reapply for Retail Member Organization status 90 days after the date of the disqualification notice from the Exchange.
Paragraph (d) of Rule 11.21 would mirror BYX Rule 11.24(d) and BZX Rule 11.25(d) by setting forth the processes for Retail Member Organization to appeal a disqualification determination. Subparagraph (d)(1) would state that if a Member disputes the Exchange's decision to disapprove it under paragraph (b) of Rule 11.21 or disqualify it under paragraph (c) of Rule 11.21, the Member (“appellant”) may request, within five business days after notice of the decision is issued by the Exchange, that the Retail Attribution Panel (the “Panel”) review the decision to determine if it was correct. Pursuant to subparagraph (d)(2), the Panel will consist of the Exchange's Chief Regulatory Officer (“CRO”), or a designee of the CRO, and two officers of the Exchange designated by the Chief Information Officer (“CIO”). Subparagraph (d)(3) states that the Panel shall review the facts and render a decision within the time frame prescribed by the Exchange. Subparagraph (d)(4) would allow the Panel to overturn or modify an action taken by the Exchange under Rule 11.21 and state that a determination by the Panel shall constitute final action by the Exchange.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to renumber current paragraph (d) to Rule 11.21 as paragraph (e) and current paragraph (e) to Rule 11.21 as paragraph (f) and to replace references to Member with the term Retail Member Organization in both of these paragraphs. Under Rule 11.21(e), Retail Member Organizations will only be able to designate their orders as Retail Orders on either an order-by-order basis using FIX ports or by designating certain of their FIX ports at the Exchange as “Retail Order Ports.” Unless otherwise instructed by the Retail Member Organization, a Retail Order will be identified as Retail when routed to an away Trading Center. Under Rule 11.21(f), Retail Member Organizations will continue to be permitted to designate a Retail Order to be identified as Retail on the EDGX Book Feed on an order-by-order basis or to identify all its Retail Orders as Retail on a port-by-port basis where that port is also designated as a Retail Order Port. A Retail Member Organization that instructs the Exchange to identify all its Retail Orders as Retail on a Retail Order Port will continue to be able to override such setting and designate any individual Retail Order from that port as Attributable or as Non-Attributable, as set forth in Rule 11.6(a).
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
Lastly, the Exchange also believes the proposed qualification standards and review process under Rule 11.21 promote just and equitable principles and are not unfairly discriminatory because they are designed to ensure that Members are properly qualified as a Retail Member Organization and only attribute as Retail those orders that meet the definition of Retail Orders. The qualification process proposed herein by the Exchange is not designed to permit unfair discrimination, but rather ensure that order that are designated to be attributed are Retail are, in fact, order submitted by a retail customer that satisfy the proposed definition of Retail Order. Lastly, the Exchange notes that these qualification and review provisions are substantially similar to those included in the rules of the BYX, BZX, New York Stock Exchange, Inc.'s (“NYSE”), and NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT”) that have been previously approved by the Commission.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the act. To the contrary, allowing the Exchange to implement substantively identical rules across the Exchange, BYX, and BZX regarding Retail Orders and Retail Member Organizations does not present any competitive issues, but rather is designed to provide greater harmonization among the Exchange, BYX, and BZX rules of similar purpose.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed or such shorter time as the Commission may designate it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (1) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Adjudicatory matters; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Notice is hereby given that the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has issued an Order, pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Section 19(g)(1) of the Act,
Section 17(d)(1) of the Act
To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules: Rule 17d-1 and Rule 17d-2 under the Act.
To address regulatory duplication in these and other areas, the Commission adopted Rule 17d-2 under the Act.
On September 12, 2008, the Commission declared effective the Participating Organizations' Plan for allocating regulatory responsibilities pursuant to Rule 17d-2.
On July 21, 2016, the Parties submitted a proposed amendment to the Plan. The proposed amendment was submitted to reflect the addition of IEX as a Listing Market (as defined in the
This agreement (the “Agreement”) by and among [BATS]
1.
a. “Rule” of an “exchange” or an “association” shall have the meaning defined in Section 3(a)(27) of the Act.
b. “Common FINRA Members” shall mean members of FINRA and at least one of the Participating Organizations.
c. “Common Insider Trading Rules” shall mean (i) the federal securities laws and rules thereunder promulgated by the SEC pertaining to insider trading, and (ii) the rules of the Participating Organizations that are related to insider trading, as provided on Exhibit A to this Agreement.
d. “Effective Date” shall have the meaning set forth in paragraph [28]
e. “Insider Trading” shall mean any conduct or action taken by a natural person or entity related in any way to the trading of securities by an insider or a related party based on or on the basis of material non-public information obtained during the performance of the insider's duties at the corporation, or otherwise misappropriated, that could be deemed a violation of the Common Insider Trading Rules.
f. “Intellectual Property” will mean any: (1) Processes, methodologies, procedures, or technology, whether or not patentable; (2) trademarks, copyrights, literary works or other works of authorship, service marks and trade secrets; or (3) software, systems, machine-readable texts and files and related documentation.
g. “Plan” shall mean this Agreement, which is submitted as a Plan for the allocation of regulatory responsibilities of surveillance for insider trading pursuant to § 17(d) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78q(d), and SEC Rule 17d-2.
h. “[Listed]
[i. “NYSE Listed Stock” shall mean an equity security that is listed on the NYSE.]
[j. “NASDAQ Listed Stock” shall mean an equity security that is listed on NASDAQ.]
[k. “NYSE Amex Listed Stock” shall mean an equity security that is listed on NYSE Amex.]
[l. “NYSE Arca Listed Stock” shall mean an equity security that is listed on NYSE Arca.]
[m. “BATS Listed Stock” shall mean an equity security that is listed on BATS.]
[n. “CHX Solely Listed Stock” shall mean an equity security that is listed only on the CHX.]
[o.]
2.
3.
a.
b.
4.
[5.
[6]
[7]
[8]
a.
b.
[9]
[10]
[11]
a.
b.
c.
d.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
[12]
[13]
a.
b.
(i) The arbitration shall be conducted in the city of New York in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof; and
(ii) There shall be three arbitrators, and the chairperson of the arbitration panel shall be an attorney.
[14]
[15]
a. The parties agree to file promptly this Agreement with the SEC for its review and approval. FINRA shall file this Agreement on behalf, and with the explicit consent, of all Participating Organizations.
b. If approved by the SEC, the Participating Organizations will notify their members of the general terms of this Agreement and of its impact on their members.
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
a. Any Participating Organization may cancel its participation in this Agreement at any time, provided that it has given 180 days written notice to the other Participating Organizations (or in the case of a change of control in ownership of a Participating Organization, such other notice time period as that Participating Organization may choose), and provided that such termination has been approved by the SEC. The cancellation of its participation in this Agreement by any Participating Organization shall not terminate this Agreement as to the remaining Participating Organizations.
b. The Regulatory Responsibilities assumed under this Agreement by FINRA may be terminated by FINRA
c. FINRA will have the right to terminate the Regulatory Responsibilities assumed under this Agreement if a Participating Organization has Defaulted in its obligation to pay the invoice on more than three (3) occasions in any rolling twenty-four (24) month period.
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
a. This Agreement may be amended to add a new Participating Organization, provided that such Participating Organization does not assume regulatory responsibility, solely by an amendment executed by FINRA and such new Participating Organization. All other Participating Organizations expressly consent to allow FINRA to add new Participating Organizations to this Agreement as provided above. FINRA will promptly notify all Participating Organizations of any such amendments to add a new Participating Organization.
b. All other amendments must be approved by each Participating Organization. All amendments, including adding a new Participating Organization, must be filed with and approved by the SEC before they become effective.
[28]
[29]
1. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Section 10(b), and rules and regulations promulgated there under in connection with insider trading, including SEC Rule 10b-5 (as it pertains to insider trading), which states that:
It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,
a. To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
b. To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
c. To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.
2. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Section 17(a), and rules and regulations promulgated there under in connection with insider trading, including SEC Rule 17a-3 (as it pertains to insider trading).
3. The following SRO Rules as they pertain to violations of insider trading:
1.
a.
(1) Quarterly Fees for each Participating Organization will be charged by FINRA according to the Participating Organization's “Percentage of Publicly Reported Trades” occurring over three-month billing periods. The “Percentage of Publicly Reported Trades” shall equal a Participating Organization's number of reported [Listed]
(2) The Quarterly Fees shall be determined by FINRA in the following manner for each Participating Organization:
(a) Less than 1.0%: If the Participating Organization's Percentage of Publicly Reported Trades for the relevant three-month billing period is less than 1.0%, the Quarterly Fee shall be $6,250, per quarter (“Static Fee”);
(b) Less than 2.0% but No Less than 1.0%: If the Participating Organization's Percentage of Publicly Reported Trades for the relevant three-month billing period is less than 2.0% but no less than 1.0%, the Quarterly Fee shall be $18,750, per quarter (“Static Fee”);
(c) 2.0% or Greater: If the Participating Organization's Percentage of Publicly Reported Trades for the relevant three-month billing period is 2.0% or greater, the Quarterly Fee shall be the amount equal to the Participating Organization's Percentage of Publicly Reported Trades multiplied by FINRA's total charge (“Total Charge”) for its performance of Regulatory Responsibilities for the relevant three-month billing period.
(3) Increases in Static Fees. FINRA will re-evaluate the Quarterly Fees on an annual basis during the annual budget process outlined in paragraph 1.c. below. During each annual re-evaluation, FINRA will have the discretion to increase the Static Fees by a percentage no greater than the percentage increase in the Final Budget over the preceding year's Final Budget. Any changes to the Static Fees shall not require an amendment to this Agreement, but rather shall be memorialized through the budget process.
(4) Increases in Total Charges. Any change in the Total Charges (whether a Final Budget increase or any mid year change) shall not require an amendment to this Agreement, but rather shall be memorialized through the budget process.
b.
c.
d.
(1) In the event that any proposed increase to Fees by FINRA for a given calendar year (which increase may arise either during the annual budgetary forecasting process or through any mid-year increase) will result in a cumulative increase in such calendar year's Fees of more than five percent (5%) above the preceding calendar year's Final Budget (a “Major Increase”), then senior management of any Participating Organization (a) that is a Listing Market or (b) for which the Percentage of Publicly Reported Trades is then currently twenty percent (20%) or greater, shall have the right to call a meeting with the senior management of FINRA in order to discuss any disagreement over such proposed Major Increase. By way of example, if FINRA provides a Final Budget for 2011 that represents an 4% increase above the Final Budget for 2010, the terms of this paragraph 1.d.(1) shall not apply; if, however, in April of 2011, FINRA notifies the Exchange Committee of an increase in Fees that represents an additional 3% increase above the Final Budget for 2010, then the increase shall be deemed a Major Increase, and the terms of this paragraph 1.d.(1) shall become applicable (
(2) In the event that senior management members of the involved parties are unable to reach an agreement regarding the proposed Major Increase, then the matter shall be referred back to the Exchange Committee for final resolution. Prior to the matter being referred back to the Exchange Committee, nothing shall prohibit the parties from conferring with the SEC. Resolution shall be reached through a vote of no fewer than all Participating Organizations seated on the Exchange Committee, and a simple majority shall be required in order to reject the proposed Major Increase.
e.
2.
3.
4.
5.
a.
(i) Once every rolling twelve (12) month period, FINRA shall permit no more than one audit (to be performed by one or more Participating Organizations) of the Fees charged by FINRA to the Participating Organizations hereunder and a detailed cost analysis supporting
(ii) If, through an Audit, the Exchange Committee determines that FINRA has inaccurately calculated the Fees for any Participating Organization, the Exchange Committee will promptly notify FINRA in writing of the amount of such difference in the Fees, and, if applicable, FINRA shall issue a reimbursement of the overage amount to the relevant Participating Organization(s), less any amount owed by the Participating Organization under any outstanding, undisputed invoice(s). If such an Audit reveals that any Participating Organization paid less than what was required pursuant to the Agreement, then that Participating Organization shall promptly pay FINRA the difference between what the Participating Organization owed pursuant to the Agreement and what that Participating Organization originally paid FINRA. If FINRA disputes the results of an Audit regarding the accuracy of the Fees, it will submit the dispute for resolution pursuant to the dispute resolution procedures in paragraph [13]
(iii) In the event that through the review of any supporting documentation provided during the Audit, any one or more Participating Organizations desire to discuss with FINRA the supporting documentation and any questions arising therefrom with regard to the manner in which regulation was conducted, the Participating Organization(s) shall call a meeting with FINRA. FINRA shall in turn notify the Exchange Committee of this meeting in advance, and all Participating Organizations shall be welcome to attend (the “Fee Analysis Meeting”). The parties to this Agreement acknowledge and agree that while FINRA commits to discuss the supporting documentation at the Fee Analysis Meeting, FINRA shall not be subject, by virtue of the above Audit rights or any discussions during the Fee Analysis Meeting or otherwise, to any limitation whatsoever, other than the Increase in Fee provisions set forth in paragraph 1.d. of this Exhibit, on its discretion as to the manner and means by which it conducts its regulatory efforts in its role as the SRO primarily liable for regulatory decisions under this Agreement. To that end, no disagreement among the Participating Organizations as to the manner or means by which FINRA conducts its regulatory efforts hereunder shall be subject to the dispute resolution procedures hereunder, and no Participating Organization shall have the right to compel FINRA to alter the manner or means by which it conducts its regulatory efforts. Further, a Participating Organization shall not have the right to compel a rebate or reassessment of fees for services rendered, on the basis that the Participating Organization would have conducted regulatory efforts in a different manner than FINRA in its professional judgment chose to conduct its regulatory efforts.
b.
FINRA shall provide the following information in reports to the Exchange Committee, which information covers activity occurring under this Agreement:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing. 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.
The Commission finds that the Plan, as proposed to be amended, is consistent with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act
Under paragraph (c) of Rule 17d-2, the Commission may, after appropriate notice and comment, declare a plan, or any part of a plan, effective. In this instance, the Commission believes that appropriate notice and comment can take place after the proposed amendment is effective. In particular, the purpose of the amendment is to add IEX as a Participating Organization and reflect that IEX will be a Listing Market (which will expand the Plan's coverage of NMS Stocks to include equity securities listed on IEX), remove CBOE as a Participating Organization and update the names of certain other Participating Organizations, update defined terms, and reflect updates to the list of Common Rules. The Commission notes that the most recent prior amendment to the Plan, which, among other things, reflected the addition of BATS as a Listing Market, was published for comment and the Commission did not receive any comments thereon.
This order gives effect to the amended Plan submitted to the Commission that is contained in File No. 4-566.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statement [sic] may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.330 (Data Products) to combine the TOPS and LAST data products, to eliminate the LAST data product, and to add execution information to the TOPS data product. Currently, Rule 11.330(a)(1) specifies that the TOPS data product is an uncompressed data feed that offers aggregated top of book quotations for all displayed orders resting on the Order Book, while paragraph (a)(3) specifies that the LAST data product is an uncompressed data feed that offers only execution information based on equities orders entered into the System (
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.330(a)(1) to provide that TOPS is an uncompressed data feed that offers aggregated top of book quotations for all displayed orders resting on the Order Book and execution information for executions on the Exchange (
The Exchange also proposes to make minor correcting and conforming changes to Rule 11.330(a)(2), which describes TOPS Viewer. Currently, as specified therein, TOPS Viewer is described as a data feed, currently available through the Exchange's public Web site, that offers two-sided quotations for all displayed orders resting on the Order Book as well as the aggregate volume traded execution information based on orders entered into the System. TOPS and TOPS Viewer contain the same information, delivered in different manners. TOPS provides the specified information only through an application programming interface (“API”) via the POP (an API is by definition not human readable). TOPS Viewer provides the specified information in both a human readable format on the Exchange's Web site as well as through an API from the Exchange's Web site.
IEX proposes to make three minor changes to the description of TOPS Viewer in subparagraph (a)(2) of Rule 11.330. First, IEX proposes a ministerial change to conform the description of the quotation information available through TOPS Viewer, in subparagraph (a)(2) of the Rule, to the description set forth in the description of TOPS in subparagraph (a)(1). Second, IEX proposes a correcting change to delete the word “aggregate” in the description because information will be provided for each execution, rather than on an aggregated basis. Third, IEX proposes to include the clarifying language proposed to be added to subparagraph (a)(1) of the rule to make clear that the execution information provided is for transactions executed on the Exchange (
IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by providing quotation and transaction information to market participants. The Exchange also believes this proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because it protects investors and the public interest and promotes just and equitable principles of trade by providing market participants with the option to receive such information otherwise than under the CTA and Nasdaq/UTP Plans.
Further, the proposal would not permit unfair discrimination because the information will be available to all market participants and market data vendors on an equivalent basis and without charge. In addition, any market participant that wishes to receive such information via the CTA and Nasdaq/UTP Plans will be able to do so. As noted above, the Exchange is simply proposing to include data elements contemplated to be included in LAST data product in TOPS, as well as to make minor correcting and conforming changes to the description of TOPS Viewer.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 11(A) of the Act
IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is not proposing to charge a fee for the TOPS feed, and will make the feed available to market participants on a fair and impartial basis, and on terms that are not unreasonably discriminatory.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A)
The Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Commission notes that the proposal would merely consolidate existing data products and make minor, clarifying changes to the descriptions of TOPS and TOPS Viewer. In the absence of a waiver of the operative delay, customers would have to subscribe to two data products to receive both top-of-book and last sale information when the Exchange begins operating on August 19, 2016, until the proposal becomes effective shortly thereafter. Waiving the operative delay would provide customers with the opportunity to receive a single, streamlined product with top-of-book and last sale information and would also provide customers with greater clarity about the content of the available products from the outset of the Exchange's launch of operations. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.
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 under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App 10(a)(2), the Department of State announces a meeting of the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) to take place on September 16, 2016, at the Department of State, Washington, DC.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App 10(d), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), it has been determined that this Board meeting will be closed to the public because the Board will be reviewing and discussing matters properly classified in accordance with Executive Order 13526. The purpose of the ISAB is to provide the Department with a continuing source of independent advice on all aspects of arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, political-military affairs, international security, and related aspects of public diplomacy. The agenda for this meeting will include classified discussions related to the Board's studies on current U.S. policy and issues regarding arms control, international security, nuclear proliferation, and diplomacy.
For more information, contact Christopher Herrick, Executive Director of the International Security Advisory Board, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, telephone: (202) 647-9683.
Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR) has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR pt. 1152 subpart F-
NSR has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) no overhead traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years and that overhead traffic, if there were any, could be rerouted over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7(c) (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be effective on September 8, 2016, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to NSR's representative: William A. Mullins, Baker & Miller PLLC, 2401 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20037.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio.
NSR has filed a combined environmental and historic report that addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. OEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by August 12, 2016. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to OEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling OEA at (202) 245-0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), NSR shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the Line. If consummation has not been effected by NSR's filing of a notice of consummation by August 9, 2017, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Ruling on petition for inconsequential noncompliance.
Baby Jogger, LLC (Baby Jogger), has determined that certain Baby Jogger rear-facing infant seats and bases do not fully comply with paragraphs S5.5, S5.6, S5.8, and S8.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213,
For further information on this decision contact Zachary Fraser, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5754, facsimile (202) 366-3081.
Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day public comment period, on September 8, 2015 in the
Paragraph S5.5.2—The required information in English is no smaller than 10 point type, but the Spanish information is smaller at about 7 point type. This only applies to models BJ64510 and BJ64529.
Paragraph S5.5.2(d)—The “manufactured in address” on the label is in about 8 font which is smaller than the required 10 point type.
Paragraph S5.5.2(m)—The required ”Child restraints could be recalled for safety reasons. . .” text is on a black background with white text instead of black text on a white background.
Paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)—The label has the “Follow all instructions. . .” ahead of the “Secure this child restraint” statement, instead of the reverse order as required. This noncompliance only affects models BJ64510 and BJ64529.
Paragraph S5.5.2(n)—The label has “This child restraint is certified for use in motor vehicles and aircraft.” Other than the first word, no other words are capitalized.
Paragraph S5.5.2.(k)(3)(ii)—The message area measures 23.4 square cm on models BJ70411, BJ70424 and BJ70431 which is less than the minimum required message area of 30 square cm.
Paragraph S5.5.2.(k)(3)(iii)—On models BJ70411, BJ70424 and BJ70431 the red circle on the required pictogram is 29 mm in diameter which is less than the required 30 mm in diameter.
Paragraph S5.6.1.7—The instruction manuals do not include reference to the required Web site in the section regarding child restraint recalls.
Paragraph S5.6.3—The instruction manuals do not include the required statement “A snug strap should not allow any slack. . .”
Paragraph S5.8.2(a)(1)—The electronic registration form does not have the required statement “FOR YOUR CHILD'S CONTINUED SAFETY. . .”
Paragraph S5.8.1(b)(2)—Figure 9a requires minimum 10 percent screen tint on the lower half of the form. The form is missing the required tinting.
Paragraph S8.1—No instructions for installing the system in an aircraft passenger seat were provided.
Refer to Baby Jogger's petition for their complete reasoning and associated illustrations. To view the petition and all supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at:
Baby Jogger additionally informed NHTSA that they have corrected all labeling noncompliances and that all future production of the subject infant car seat/stroller systems and stand-alone units will be in full compliance with FMVSS No. 213.
In summation, Baby Jogger believes that the described noncompliance of the subject infant car seat/stroller systems and standalone units is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its
Baby Jogger printed labels required in paragraph S5.5.2 containing the place of manufacture in 8 point type rather than the required 10 point type. Baby Jogger believes the smaller type of the place of manufacture will not have any impact on child passenger safety. Baby Jogger failed to capitalize certain first letters of words contained in a label to instruct the user that the restraint is certified for use in motor vehicles and aircraft (paragraph S5.5.2(n)). Baby Jogger believes the lower case letters will not have any impact on child passenger safety. Finally, Baby Jogger printed on-product labels with two of the required statements of paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)in incorrect order. Baby Jogger believes the out of order information will not have any impact on child passenger safety.
NHTSA does not concur with Baby Jogger's reasons for inconsequentiality stated above. With regard to the noncompliant 8 point font size, in the Final Rule establishing FMVSS No. 139, “New pneumatic radial tires for light vehicles,” the agency stated “With respect to the size of the text on the placard and label, NHTSA learned from focus groups that the public generally prefers larger fonts in label text because it is easier to read. This helps ensure the placard and label will effectively convey the message to the reader.”
For these reasons, NHTSA believes that font size less than the required 10 point type results in undesirable reading conditions which may cause eye strain and lead to the consumer failing to complete reading all the important safety instructions.
Baby Jogger failed to capitalize certain first letters of words contained in a label to instruct the user that the restraint is certified for use in motor vehicles and aircraft (paragraph S5.5.2(n)). Baby Jogger believes the lower case letters will not have any impact on child passenger safety.
The agency believes that failure to capitalize the required statements for proper use of child restraints may result in the consumer not adequately seeing and understanding the important safety information pertaining to proper use of the restraints.
Baby Jogger printed on-product labels with two of the required statements of paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)in incorrect order. Baby Jogger believes the out of order information will not have any impact on child passenger safety because the statements are stand-alone and do not depend on another statement; therefore, the order of bulleted statements do affect the proper use of the car seat.
NHTSA disagrees with this reasoning. S5.5.2(g)(1) requires the heading “`WARNING! DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur', capitalized as written and followed by bulleted statements in the following order:” (emphasis added). The order of statements follows a sequence beginning with instructions for rear-facing usage (S5.5.2(k)(1)), the maximum mass of children that can safely occupy the system (S.5.5.2(f)), the proper adjustment of the belts provided with the child restraint (S5.5.2(h)), instructions for securing a child restraint to the vehicle with a top tether strap (S5.5.2(j), and instructions for securing a booster seat to the vehicle using the vehicle's seat belt system (S5.5.2(i)). Baby Jogger incorrectly placed the statements required by S5.5.2(i) before the statements required by S5.5.2(j). The agency intentionally created a sequence of information that begins with instructions that call for interaction between the occupant and the restraint system, and ends with instructions that call for interaction between the occupant and the written instruction. If this sequence is disrupted by placing items out of order the user could become distracted and disregard important instructions.
The agency believes the above label noncompliances, in totality, have a compounding effect that may result in the user mistrusting information on the labels and thereby ignoring the labels.
Baby Jogger notified the agency of the following two noncompliances related to background color:
(1) Paragraph S5.5.2 requires a label with information that child restraints could be recalled for safety reasons to be printed on a white background with black text. The noncompliant label contains the required information but is printed on black background with white text. Baby Jogger believes there is no indication that the reversed color combination will affect consumers' ability to understand the information on the label, and, therefore, the contrasting colors will not have any impact on child passenger safety.
NHTSA disagrees with Baby Jogger's assessment that the reversal of required text/label color will not affect the consumers' ability to understand the label. A visual inspection of the label in a photograph provided by Baby Jogger shows that the white text on the black background is not as easy to read as the compliant text located above. (This picture is located in the docket). The consumer may not read the label in its entirety if the ability to read the information on the label creates a challenge to the reader, which would result in the reader not being aware of important recall information.
(2) S5.8.1(b)(2) requires the registration form to conform to Figures 9a and 9b which require portions of the card to have a minimum 10% screen tint. The registration card provided by Baby Jogger does not have any screen tint. Baby Jogger believes that the missing screen tint will not have an impact on motor vehicle safety because there is no indication that the missing tint will affect consumers' ability to understand the information on the registration card.
The image of the registration card provided in Baby Jogger's petition would seem to support Baby Jogger's argument that the missing tint does not affect the ability to understand the required information provided on the registration card.
Three of the Baby Jogger models have the air bag warning label required by
In addition, Baby Jogger maintains for both noncompliances above that the required information is provided in the printed instructions and is prominently featured on the affected products, and there is no indication that the sizing issue affects consumers' ability to understand or appreciate the warnings.
We disagree with Baby Jogger that the smaller than required air bag warning label message area creates no risk to motor vehicle safety. The air bag warning labels are the agency's primary method for obtaining the consumer's attention and conveying important safety information with respect to the proper location to install a rear-facing child restraint. The agency believes that these air bag warning labels are necessary to make consumers aware of the potentially serious consequences of placing a rear-facing child seat or any child twelve and under on the front seat with an air bag, and that the rear seat is the safest place for these children. In NHTSA's occupant crash protection rule published on May 12, 2000,
The air bag warning label requirements in FMVSS No. 213,
The pictogram of the air bag warning label has a diameter that is 3 percent below the required 30 mm. Even though the pictogram minimum format is not met, NHTSA believes in this case that the consumer will have a message size that is acceptable.
Baby Jogger notified the agency of the following four noncompliances related to missing information required in the printed instructions or electronic registration form in FMVSS No. 213:
(1) Paragraph S5.6.1.7 requires the printed instructions to include the statement in paragraph (ii) that “Child restraints could be recalled . . . or register on-line at (
The agency disagrees with Baby Jogger that the missing information for on-line registration does not create a risk to motor vehicle safety. While the manufacturer has the choice to provide on-line registration or not, if the manufacturer does provide the option for on-line registration then they are required to provide the Web site address in the section regarding child seat registration. The agency recognizes the importance of child restraint registrations. To support increasing the number of registrations, the agency is currently studying efforts to increase the rate of child restraint registrations so that in the event of a recall, all owners of affected units will be notified of a potentially unsafe product.
(2) Paragraph S5.6.3 requires the printed instructions to include the statement: “A snug strap should not allow any slack. It lies in a relatively straight line without sagging. It does not press on the child's flesh or push the child's body into an unnatural position.” The printed instruction manual does not include this information. Baby Jogger does not believe that this noncompliance creates a risk to motor vehicle safety because the printed instructions provide adequate text to adjust the harness around the child including statements addressing snugness and sagging (see Baby Jogger's Petition in Docket NHTSA-2015-0074 for detail).
NHTSA disagrees with Baby Jogger that the provided text to address strap snugness in lieu of the required text is sufficient to replace the required text. The text provided by Baby Jogger contains additional information not related to strap snugness. In addition, the provided text fails to provide guidance to achieve a snug fit which may result in an improper securing of the child in the restraint and a compromise of the child seat's safety effectiveness in the event of a crash.
(3) Paragraph S8.1 requires the printed instructions to include a step-by-step procedure (including diagrams) for installing the system in aircraft passenger seats, securing a child in the system when it is installed in aircraft, and adjusting the system to fit the child. The printed instruction manual does not include instructions for installing the system in aircraft passenger seats. Baby Jogger does not believe that the missing aircraft installation information creates a risk to motor vehicle safety because the printed instructions address the installation of the child seat in a vehicle equipped with a lap belt only, which is similar to the installation of the child seat in an aircraft passenger seat with lap belt only. Baby Jogger believes that the installation instructions provided for a vehicle lap belt will be logically understood as the method to secure the child seat to the aircraft passenger seat.
NHTSA disagrees with Baby Jogger's line of reasoning. We have concerns that absent the required instructions specific to aircraft passenger installation, the user will be unprepared to properly secure the child restraint to the aircraft passenger seat, properly secure the child when it is installed in an aircraft, and properly adjust the system to fit the child. These potential improper procedures could result in a compromise of the child seat's safety effectiveness during flight.
(4) Paragraph S5.8.2(a)(1)(i) requires the electronic registration form to contain the statement “FOR YOUR CHILD'S CONTINUED SAFETY” at the top of the form. The electronic registration form on the Baby Jogger Web site did not include this statement at the top. Baby Jogger believes that users of child restraints have a basic understanding that recalls are conducted for safety reasons, and that one who navigated to the electronic registration form would not be
The Agency agrees that a consumer who has navigated to the on-line registration will not be dissuaded from registering due to the missing phrase. Also, the Agency notes that Baby Jogger has corrected this omission on its on-line registration form and the required statement is present.
Paragraph S5.5.2 of FMVSS No. 213 requires the information in the English language to be not smaller than 10 point type. An on-product warning label provided by Baby Jogger has the Spanish information at approximately 7 point type. The English language label is in full compliance with this requirement. Baby Jogger believes that the noncompliant text does not create a risk to motor vehicle safety because the information is clearly displayed on the affected child restraints and clearly communicates the required information.
NHTSA believes that the 7 point type text provided in the Spanish language label is not clearly displayed and is difficult to read. The smaller font size likely poses a challenge to the consumer's ability to read the text and could result in the consumer ignoring the text due to the difficulty in being able to read it. NHTSA disagrees with Baby Jogger's reasons for inconsequentiality as supported by the reasons stated above under the category “Information Type Size.”
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the petitioner has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliances identified above as “excluded” in its petition are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety: (b) minimum 10 percent tint on registration card, (c) minimum 30 mm diameter pictogram on air bag warning label, and (d) missing statement at the top of the on-line registration form. Accordingly, we grant its petition on these issues.
(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8).
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of five individuals and six entities whose property and interests in property have been unblocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Kingpin Act). Additionally, OFAC is publishing an update to the identifying information of one individual currently included in the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List).
The unblocking and removal from the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) of the individuals and entities identified in this notice whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to the Kingpin Act, is effective on August 4, 2016. Additionally, the update to the SDN List of the identifying information of the individual identified in this notice is also effective on August 4, 2016.
Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Washington, DC 20220, Tel: (202) 622-2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site at (
On December 3, 1999, the Kingpin Act (21 U.S.C. Sections 1901-1908, 8 U.S.C. Section 1182) was signed into law by the President of the United States. The Kingpin Act provides a statutory framework for the President to impose sanctions against significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis, with the objective of denying their businesses and agents access to the U.S. financial system and to the benefits of trade and transactions involving U.S. persons and entities.
The Kingpin Act blocks all property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, owned or controlled by significant foreign narcotics traffickers as identified by the President or the Secretary of the Treasury. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury consults with the Attorney General, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security when designating and blocking the property or interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, of persons or entities found to be: (1) Materially assisting in, or providing financial or technological support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; (2) owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; and/or (3) playing a significant role in international narcotics trafficking.
On August 4, 2016, the Associate Director of OFAC's Office of Global Targeting removed from the SDN List the individuals and entities listed below, whose property and interests in property was blocked pursuant to the Kingpin Act.
Additionally, on August 4, 2016, the Associate Director of OFAC's Office of Global Targeting updated the SDN List for one individual listed below, whose property and interests in property continue to be blocked pursuant to the Kingpin Act.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of four individuals whose property and interests in property have been unblocked pursuant to Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995, “Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions With Significant Narcotics Traffickers”.
The unblocking and removal from the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) of the four individuals identified in this notice whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995, is effective on August 4, 2016.
Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Washington, DC 20220, Tel: (202) 622-2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site at (
On October 21, 1995, the President, invoking the authority,
Section 1 of the Order blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in the United States, or that hereafter come within the United States or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, of: (1) The foreign persons listed in an Annex to the Order; (2) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State: (a) To play a significant role in international narcotics trafficking centered in Colombia; or (b) to materially assist in, or provide financial or technological support for or goods or services in support of, the narcotics trafficking activities of persons designated in or pursuant to the Order; and (3) persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of, persons designated pursuant to the Order.
On August 4, 2016, the Associate Director of OFAC's Office of Global Targeting removed from the SDN List the individuals listed below, whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to the Order:
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that a meeting of the Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee will be held on August 30-31, 2016, in Room 630 at the Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC. On August 30, the session will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 5:00 p.m. On August 31, the session will begin at 8:00 a.m. and end at 12:00 p.m. This meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary of VA and the Under Secretary for Health on all matters pertaining to geriatrics and gerontology. The Committee assesses the capability of VA health care facilities and programs to meet the medical, psychological, and social needs of older Veterans and evaluates VA programs designated as Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Centers.
The meeting will feature presentations and discussions on VA's geriatrics and extended care programs, aging research activities, updates on VA's employee staff working in the area of geriatrics (to include training, recruitment and retention approaches), Veterans Health Administration (VHA) strategic planning activities in geriatrics and extended care, recent VHA efforts regarding dementia and program advances in palliative care, and performance and oversight of VA Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Centers.
No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. Interested parties should provide written comments for review by the Committee to Mrs. Marcia Holt-Delaney, Program Analyst, Geriatrics and Extended Care Services (10P4G), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, or via email at
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 |