Page Range | 6157-6410 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
81 FR 6185 - Reauthorization of the United States Grain Standards Act | |
81 FR 6405 - Establishing a Federal Earthquake Risk Management Standard | |
81 FR 6157 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Situation in or in Relation to Côte d'Ivoire | |
81 FR 6292 - Notice of Public Meeting: Bureau of Land Management Nevada Resource Advisory Councils; Postponement | |
81 FR 6307 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
81 FR 6300 - Sunshine Act Meetings; National Science Board | |
81 FR 6308 - Sunshine Act; Notice of Public Meeting | |
81 FR 6260 - Deletion of Consent Agenda Items From Sunshine Act Meeting | |
81 FR 6258 - Availability of FY 14 Grantee Performance Evaluation Reports for the Eight States of EPA Region 4 and 17 Local Agencies | |
81 FR 6259 - Availability of FY 13 Grantee Performance Evaluation Reports for the Eight States of EPA Region 4 and 17 Local Agencies | |
81 FR 6257 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Uses | |
81 FR 6175 - Schedules of Controlled Substances: Extension of Temporary Placement of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act | |
81 FR 6324 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Office of Language Services Contractor Application | |
81 FR 6190 - Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA into Schedule I | |
81 FR 6324 - Advisory Committee on Private International Law: Public Meeting on Online Dispute Resolution | |
81 FR 6200 - Air Quality Plans; Georgia; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard | |
81 FR 6171 - Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of the Synthetic Cannabinoid MAB-CHMINACA Into Schedule I | |
81 FR 6329 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
81 FR 6330 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
81 FR 6326 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
81 FR 6332 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
81 FR 6251 - Application Deadline for Fiscal Year 2016; Small, Rural School Achievement Program | |
81 FR 6264 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
81 FR 6244 - Manual for Courts-Martial; Proposed Amendments | |
81 FR 6308 - New Postal Product | |
81 FR 6236 - Antidumping Duty Investigations of Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Notice of Correction to Preliminary Antidumping Determinations | |
81 FR 6234 - Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited First Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order | |
81 FR 6237 - Heavy Iron Construction Castings from Brazil: Final Results of Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order | |
81 FR 6179 - Safety Zone; Bayou Petite Caillou, Boudreaux Canal Floodgate; Chauvin, LA | |
81 FR 6196 - Special Local Regulation; Charleston Race Week, Charleston Harbor, Charleston, SC | |
81 FR 6285 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0039 | |
81 FR 6277 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 6275 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 6181 - Safety Zone; Hudson River, Anchorage Ground 19-W | |
81 FR 6328 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Narcolepsy | |
81 FR 6238 - Procurement List; Additions and Deletions | |
81 FR 6241 - Procurement List; Proposed Deletions | |
81 FR 6243 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 6222 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 35 | |
81 FR 6258 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
81 FR 6229 - Ochoco, Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman National Forests; Oregon and Washington; Blue Mountains Forest Resiliency Project | |
81 FR 6170 - Returning Evidence at the Appeals Council Level | |
81 FR 6281 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; National Toxicology Program (NTP) Level of Concern Categories Study (NIEHS) | |
81 FR 6246 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification | |
81 FR 6325 - Louisiana Southern Railroad, L.L.C.-Lease Exemption Containing Interchange Commitment-The Kansas City Southern Railway Company | |
81 FR 6249 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification | |
81 FR 6293 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New Collection: Financial Capability Form | |
81 FR 6293 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection Monthly Return of Human Trafficking Offenses Known to Law Enforcement | |
81 FR 6244 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification | |
81 FR 6256 - Energy Resources USA, Inc.; Notice of Competing Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene | |
81 FR 6252 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
81 FR 6253 - TransCanada Hydro Northeast, Inc.; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
81 FR 6253 - LNG Development Company, LLC; Oregon Pipeline Company, LLC; Northwest Pipeline LLC; Notice of Revised Schedule for Environmental Review of the Oregon LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project and Washington Expansion Project | |
81 FR 6254 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
81 FR 6256 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
81 FR 6325 - Release of Waybill Data | |
81 FR 6290 - Advisory Board for Exceptional Children | |
81 FR 6289 - Request for Nominations of Members To Serve on the Bureau of Indian Education Advisory Board for Exceptional Children | |
81 FR 6225 - Environmental Impact Statement; Introduction of the Products of Biotechnology | |
81 FR 6280 - Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Minority Health; Correction | |
81 FR 6278 - National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions Received | |
81 FR 6301 - Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors | |
81 FR 6302 - United States Geological Survey, TRIGA Research Reactor | |
81 FR 6257 - Colusa-Sutter 500-Kilovolt Transmission Line Project, Colusa and Sutter Counties, California (DOE/EIS-0514) | |
81 FR 6183 - Income Level for Individuals Eligible for Assistance | |
81 FR 6238 - Council Coordination Committee Meeting | |
81 FR 6244 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive License; Nguran Corporation | |
81 FR 6261 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Re FDIC Small Business Lending Survey | |
81 FR 6169 - Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards | |
81 FR 6263 - Notice of Termination; 10303 Progress Bank of Florida; Tampa, Florida | |
81 FR 6260 - Notice of Termination; 4556 Meritor Savings Bank; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | |
81 FR 6233 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 6265 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
81 FR 6234 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 6334 - Pipeline Safety: Safe Operations of Underground Storage Facilities for Natural Gas | |
81 FR 6301 - Information Collection; NRC Form 790 Classification Record | |
81 FR 6299 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License | |
81 FR 6292 - Large Residential Washers From China; Determination | |
81 FR 6322 - Medallion Financial Corp.; Notice of Application | |
81 FR 6241 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review | |
81 FR 6210 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; Seafood Import Monitoring Program | |
81 FR 6336 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Revision of an Approved Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review; Company-Run Annual Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions With Total Consolidated Assets of $50 Billion or More Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act | |
81 FR 6225 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 6295 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New Collection: State and Local Justice Agencies Serving Tribal Lands (SLJASTL): Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies Serving Tribal Lands (CSLLEASTL) | |
81 FR 6294 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New Collection: State and Local Justice Agencies Serving Tribal Lands (SLJASTL): Census of State and Local Prosecutor Offices Serving Tribal Lands (CSLPOSTL) | |
81 FR 6229 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 6339 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Fiduciary Activities | |
81 FR 6340 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Identity Theft Red Flags and Address Discrepancies Under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 | |
81 FR 6308 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
81 FR 6264 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
81 FR 6264 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities | |
81 FR 6295 - Notice-Agricultural Worker Population Estimates for Basic Field-Migrant Grants | |
81 FR 6333 - Notice To Rescind Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement Virginia Beach Transit Extension Study, Virginia | |
81 FR 6317 - PNC Funds, et al.; Notice of Application | |
81 FR 6311 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Amending the Seventh Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of the Exchange To Establish a Committee for Review as a Sub-Committee of the ROC and Make Conforming Changes to Rules and the NYSE MKT Company Guide | |
81 FR 6314 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Limit Order Protection and a Market Order Protection | |
81 FR 6308 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Limit Order Protection and a Market Order Protection | |
81 FR 6263 - International Ocean Transportation Supply Chain Engagement; Order | |
81 FR 6284 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 6284 - National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 6281 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 6285 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Charter Renewal | |
81 FR 6285 - Center for Scientific Review; Cancellation of Meeting | |
81 FR 6282 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 6282 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
81 FR 6283 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request Consumer Health Information in Public Libraries User Needs Survey (NLM) | |
81 FR 6342 - Agency Information Collection (VA Survey of Veteran Enrollees' Health and Use of Health Care (Survey of Enrollees)) Activity Under OMB Review | |
81 FR 6342 - Commission on Care | |
81 FR 6272 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
81 FR 6274 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
81 FR 6270 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
81 FR 6286 - Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD)-Alternative Requirements or Waivers: Alternative Requirements for Use of Public Housing Units for the San Francisco Housing Authority | |
81 FR 6326 - Seventeenth Meeting: RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC) | |
81 FR 6198 - Seaway Regulations and Rules: Periodic Update, Various Categories | |
81 FR 6300 - Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541) | |
81 FR 6300 - Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 | |
81 FR 6185 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
81 FR 6260 - Notice of Termination; 10483 Mountain National Bank, Sevierville, Tennessee | |
81 FR 6178 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, South Branch of the Elizabeth River, Portsmouth-Chesapeake, VA | |
81 FR 6291 - Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill; Final Phase V Early Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment | |
81 FR 6177 - Maine State Plan for State and Local Government Employers | |
81 FR 6243 - Record of Decision for the Schofield Generating Station Project Final Environmental Impact Statement, United States Army Garrison-Hawaii | |
81 FR 6343 - Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan | |
81 FR 6372 - National Public Transportation Safety Plan | |
81 FR 6375 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical and Geotechnical Survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska | |
81 FR 6287 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless | |
81 FR 6159 - Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Department of Homeland Security |
Agricultural Research Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Foreign Agricultural Service
Forest Service
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Western Area Power Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Comptroller of the Currency
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.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.
Final rule.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), with the concurrence of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE), is finalizing this rule to supplement the OGE Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (OGE Standards) for DHS employees. These regulations supplement the OGE Standards and, among other things, set forth employee restrictions on the purchase of certain Government-owned property; require employees to report allegations of waste, fraud, and abuse; require employees to seek prior approval for certain outside employment and activities; prohibit employees in some DHS components from engaging in certain types of outside employment activities; and require designated components to develop instructions regarding the procedures for obtaining prior approval for outside employment and activities. These regulations also designate components within DHS as separate agencies for purposes of determining whether the donor of a gift is a “prohibited source” and of identifying an employee's agency for the regulations governing teaching, speaking, and writing. This rulemaking is necessary in view of DHS programs and operations; DHS is comprised of numerous legacy agencies which have varying or no supplemental ethics regulations. This final rule follows publication of a proposed rule on October 12, 2011. We considered public comments on the proposed rule while revising this final rule. This final rule includes revisions to the definition of “outside employment” and the additional provisions applicable only to employees of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
This rule is effective March 7, 2016.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket DHS-2008-0168 and are available for inspection or copying from the Internet by going to
Ferne L. Mosley, Deputy Ethics Official, Department of Homeland Security, 202-447-3302, email:
On August 7, 1992, the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) issued a final rule setting forth the uniform Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (OGE Standards), which, as corrected and amended, are codified at 5 CFR part 2635 (57 FR 35006). Effective on February 3, 1993, the OGE Standards established uniform ethics rules applicable to all Executive branch personnel.
Pursuant to 5 CFR 2635.105, Executive branch agencies are authorized to publish, with the concurrence of OGE, supplemental regulations deemed necessary to implement their respective ethics programs. Prior to the creation of DHS, several legacy agencies were operating under supplemental ethics regulations issued by their former parent departments. The regulations finalized in this action will advance the purposes of the OGE Standards. Some outside employment interests and activities, if held by employees of certain Department of Homeland Security (DHS) components, could cause a reasonable person to question an employee's impartiality and objectivity. Particularly in view of the breadth of DHS's programs and operations, and because DHS is comprised of numerous legacy components with varying or no supplemental ethics regulations, this action is both necessary and appropriate. This rule will require prior approval of certain outside employment and activities to avoid potential conflicts of interest. This rule will also
On October 12, 2011, DHS, with OGE's concurrence, published for comment a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to supplement the OGE Standards for DHS employees. 76 FR 63206. The NPRM proposed supplemental ethics rules designed to implement uniform ethical requirements for all DHS employees, many of whom were previously employed by 22 other Executive branch departments and agencies prior to DHS's formation in 2003. The NPRM also proposed certain ethical requirements specific to certain DHS components based on the nature of their programs and operations. Specifically, the NPRM proposed to (1) set forth employee restrictions on the purchase of certain Government-owned property; (2) require employees to report allegations of waste, fraud, and abuse; (3) require employees to seek prior approval for certain outside employment and activities; (4) prohibit employees in some DHS components from engaging in certain types of outside employment activities; (5) require designated components to develop instructions regarding the procedures for obtaining prior approval for outside employment and activities; and (6) designate components within DHS as a separate agency for purposes of determining whether the donor of a gift is a “prohibited source” and of identifying an employee's agency for the regulations governing teaching, speaking, and writing. These proposals sought to strengthen the integrity of DHS programs and operations and give the public greater confidence that DHS employees are held to a high standard of ethical behavior while carrying out DHS's missions. For a more complete discussion of the proposals in the NPRM, please refer to the preamble of that document available in the public docket for this rulemaking and in the
By the close of the NPRM's public comment period on December 12, 2011, DHS received 12 comment letters. Eight of the commenters expressed concern that the NPRM's definition of “outside employment” was overly broad. Some commenters stated that the definition impeded the constitutional rights and lawful political activities of DHS employees. Other commenters addressed the necessity for the rule, specifically the requirement to seek prior approval for outside activities and employment; the requirement for employees to report waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption; and the amount of government resources and time required to implement the rule's provisions. Other commenters generally sought clarification on the impact the rule will have on employees serving as U.S. Coast Guard reservists and reservists in other military services, as well as the rule's effect on official employee interactions with non-Federal entities. There were also comments on the agency-specific proposed regulations for employees of U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) components, regarding the broad nature of the prohibited outside employment and activities for these employees and how this might affect an employee's ability to engage in certain routine consumer transactions. In the next section, we discuss the public comments in greater detail and provide DHS responses.
For example, all Federal employees are prohibited by criminal statute from acting as an agent or attorney on behalf of another in a matter in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest before any officer, employee, or court of the United States.
Regarding the commenter's other suggestion, although some DHS components (specifically, CBP, FEMA, and ICE) have determined that certain types of outside employment and other activities should be prohibited, those determinations do not apply DHS-wide. For example, there is no basis for broadly extending the prohibition on CBP employees from working for a customs broker to the employees of other DHS components whose missions do not involve customs. Moreover, it is not possible to anticipate all types of outside employment and other activities that might create a potential conflict. Accordingly, this final rule does not adopt the commenter's suggestion for a blanket list of prohibited employment or activities, because such a list would likely result in overly-broad restrictions for all DHS employees.
Although many employees voluntarily seek the guidance of an agency ethics official before engaging in outside employment or activities, some conflicts may not be obvious to employees, thereby putting them at unnecessary risk for potential conflicts or violations of the law. Therefore, a regulatory requirement for employees to obtain prior approval for outside employment and other activities is not only in the best interest of DHS and the public, it will also help protect employees from inadvertent missteps.
Additionally, DHS has determined that a uniform prior approval requirement in the DHS supplemental ethics regulations is important for establishing and maintaining consistency in the DHS ethics program. The rule will eliminate discrepancies between certain DHS employees previously employed by legacy agencies, who are covered by the legacy agency's ethics rules, and employees hired after DHS was created, who had not previously been covered by a supplemental ethics regulation. This rule will cover all DHS employees.
Additionally, this final rule requires DHS components to issue component-specific instructions or a manual that governs employee requests for approval of outside employment or activities. The U.S. Coast Guard may address matters such as the one raised by the commenter in its instructions or manual.
In addition, there are certain types of employers with which the employment of a CBP employee would create a conflict, regardless of the nature of the employment activity. Thus, 5 CFR 4601.104(a)(1) prohibits a CBP employee from engaging in outside employment activities in support of or on behalf of certain types of entities that generally engage in business related to CBP missions (
Following review of the proposed regulatory text, DHS has included a number of revisions in this final rule. DHS intends the revisions to improve clarity without sacrificing important controls over potentially problematic employee activities.
Additionally, in response to this comment, DHS conducted a broader review of the CBP provisions in the regulatory text to determine whether similar clarifications would be appropriate. As a result of that review, this final rule includes another revision to the provision that prohibits CBP employees from engaging in outside employment activities related to agriculture matters. As proposed, the rule would have generally restricted CBP employees from engaging in outside employment or activities with a business or other entity that engages in services related to “agriculture matters.” Regarding this regulatory provision, DHS only intends to restrict CBP employees from engaging with businesses or entities that deal with agricultural matters that relate to CBP's mission. To avoid restricting CBP employee involvement in such activities that would not conflict with their official duties or CBP's mission, this final rule includes clarifying language to that effect in the regulatory text.
Additionally, in response to this comment and the CBP-specific comment referenced above, DHS also reviewed the ICE-specific provisions in the regulatory text to determine whether additional clarifications would be appropriate. As a result of that review, this final rule includes revisions in parallel with the CBP-specific revisions described above.
In addition, DHS does not believe this rulemaking would increase government costs. To the extent that additional prior approval of outside employment activities increases the number of reviews by DHS ethics officials of proposed outside employment, this increased volume is expected to be offset with fewer conflict situations for ethics officials and employees. In summary, this rule only regulates DHS employees, is not expected to increase government costs, and is expected to reduce the number of conflict situations—and therefore, reduce the costs associated with potentially lengthy investigations and corrective actions—within DHS. The rule is also expected to result in substantial additional benefits, including enhanced transparency into prior approval requirements and stronger public confidence in the integrity of DHS programs and operations.
Aside from the changes made in response to comments discussed in Section III., this final rule adopts the proposals from the NPRM. The following discussion provides a summary of the provisions in the final rule.
This section identifies to whom the supplemental regulations apply. It also cross-references to other ethics regulations and guidance applicable to DHS employees—including regulations on financial disclosure, financial interests, and employee responsibilities and conduct—and implementing DHS guidance and procedures issued in accordance with the OGE Standards.
This section further defines the term “agency designee” as it appears in 5 CFR 2635.102(b), to identify those persons within DHS who are designated to act on requests and make determinations relating to 5 CFR part 2635 and this part. The section also defines the term “outside employment” and lists the types of employment and activities that would require prior approval. It also lists activities for which prior approval is not required, such as the uncompensated activities (other than the reimbursement of expenses) on behalf of a charitable or nonprofit organization that do not involve fiduciary duties and do not relate to the employee's official duties as defined by 5 CFR 2635.807. In addition, this section defines the term “Chief Deputy Ethics Official” as the person (or persons) within DHS delegated authority by the DHS Designated Agency Ethics Official (DAEO) to manage and coordinate the ethics programs within DHS's components and offices.
This section identifies certain components within DHS as separate agencies for the purposes of the provisions governing prior approval for outside activities, accepting gifts from non-Federal sources, outside teaching, speaking, and writing activities, and issuing prior approval instructions. For those specified purposes, DHS has designated eight DHS components as separate agencies and has designated the remainder of the DHS components as a single agency. For the limited purpose of issuing prior approval instructions, DHS has designated the Office of Inspector General as a separate agency. To avoid confusion when reading this preamble together with the regulatory text, the discussion in this Section IV. will refer to the DHS components as “agencies,” consistent with the regulatory text of this final rule.
In addition, paragraph (c) of this section explains the applicability of these requirements to detailed employees within DHS (
This section requires employees to obtain written approval prior to engaging in any outside employment and activities, as defined by the rule. The prior approval requirement is an integral part of DHS's ethics program. The prior approval requirement is necessary to ensure that an employee's participation in certain outside employment does not adversely affect operations within the employing agency or place the employee at risk of violating applicable Federal conduct statutes and regulations. In addition,
Because DHS provides money in the form of grants and contracts, and engages in enforcement, regulatory, and security functions across a multitude of industry sectors, requiring prior approval is necessary to ensure that the public will have confidence in the integrity of DHS programs and operations. In fulfilling its mission, DHS would be hindered if members of the public did not have confidence in DHS employees' ability to act impartially while performing their official duties.
Section 4601.103(a) requires employees to obtain approval from the DHS employee's agency for certain outside employment and activities, with or without compensation, unless the employing agency issues an instruction or manual exempting such outside employment or activities. Section 4601.103(b) describes the standard the agency must follow for approval of requests for outside employment and activities. Section 4601.103(c) describes the responsibilities of DHS agencies for issuing instructions to employees on how to request prior approval of outside employment and activities.
Because Special Government Employees may serve at DHS only for a limited time during a 365-day period and for a limited purpose (such as service on a Federal Advisory Committee or service as a consultant), the nature of their service to DHS does not require that they be subject to the prior approval requirement for outside employment and activities or the additional restrictions applicable to CBP, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), or ICE employees described below.
This section prohibits CBP employees, except Special Government Employees, from being employed by, or from engaging in, activities in support of or on behalf of, an entity that engages in a trade or business performing specified customs, immigration, or agriculture activities or services.
This section also requires a CBP employee with a spouse, a relative who is a financial dependent or household member, or another household member or financial dependent who is employed in a position that the CBP employee is prohibited from occupying to notify his or her agency designee in writing of the above-described employment circumstances. In addition, the employee is disqualified from participating in an official capacity in any particular matter involving such person or the person's employer unless authorized to do so by the agency designee, with the advice and clearance of the CBP Chief Deputy Ethics Official.
This section prohibits certain FEMA employees, except Special Government Employees, both intermittent and non-intermittent, from being employed by a FEMA contractor. It also provides the procedures for requesting a waiver of this restriction.
This section prohibits ICE employees, except Special Government Employees, from being employed by, or from engaging in activities in support of or on behalf of, an entity that engages in a trade or business performing specified customs, immigration, or agriculture activities or services. This section also requires an ICE employee with a spouse, a relative who is a financial dependent or household member, or another household member or financial dependent who is employed in a position that the ICE employee is prohibited from occupying to notify his or her agency designee in writing of the above-described employment circumstances. In addition, the employee is disqualified from participating in an official capacity in any particular matter involving such person or the person's employer unless authorized to do so by the agency designee, with the advice and clearance of the ICE Chief Deputy Ethics Official.
This section prohibits the purchase by employees of certain Government property under the control of, seized by, forfeited, under the direction of, or incident to, the employee's agency. It also sets forth the exception and waiver provisions under this section.
This section requires all DHS employees to report allegations of waste, fraud, abuse, or corruption to the appropriate authorities within DHS, such as the DHS Office of Inspector General or the appropriate Office of Internal Affairs or Office of Professional Responsibility. Employee responsibilities for reporting suspicions of violations of law or regulation to the DHS Office of Inspector General or similar office are found in related DHS and agency instructions. This regulation complements but does not displace those responsibilities.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it. As discussed previously, this rule only regulates DHS employees and consequently does not impose any additional direct costs on the private sector. In addition, DHS does not believe this rulemaking would increase government costs. To the extent that additional prior approval of outside employment activities increases the number of reviews by DHS ethics officials of proposed outside employment, this increased volume is expected to be offset with fewer conflict situations—and therefore, reduce the costs associated with potentially lengthy investigations and corrective actions—within DHS. The rule is also expected to result in substantial additional benefits, including enhanced transparency into prior approval requirements and stronger public confidence in the integrity of DHS programs and operations.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), DHS has considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. DHS certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, because it would only directly affect DHS employees.
Conflict of interests, Government employees.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DHS, with the concurrence of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, is
5 U.S.C. 301, 7301, 7353; 5 U.S.C. App. (Ethics in Government Act of 1978); E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306; 5 CFR 2635.105, 2635.203(a), 2635.403(a), 2635.702, 2635.703, 2635.802(a), 2635.803, 2635.807(a)(2)(ii).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(A) Acting in a fiduciary capacity,
(B) Providing professional services for compensation,
(C) Rendering advice for compensation other than the reimbursement of expenses, or
(D) An activity relating to the employee's official duties as defined in 5 CFR 2635.807(a)(2)(i)(A) through (E), to include activities relating to any ongoing or announced policy, program, or operation of the employee's agency as it is defined at 5 CFR 4601.102.
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(3)
(4) “Special Government Employee” as used in this part has the same meaning as in 18 U.S.C. 202(a).
(a) Pursuant to 5 CFR 2635.203(a), DHS designates each of the following components as a separate agency for purposes of the regulations in subpart B of 5 CFR part 2635 governing gifts from outside sources, including determining whether the donor of a gift is a prohibited source under 5 CFR 2635.203(d); for purposes of the regulations in § 4601.103(c) of this part governing the establishment of procedures for obtaining prior approval for outside employment; for purposes of the regulations in § 4601.103(c) of this part governing the designation of officials; and for the purposes of the regulations in 5 CFR 2635.807 governing teaching, speaking, and writing:
(1) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA);
(2) Federal Law Enforcement Training Center;
(3) Transportation Security Administration;
(4) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services;
(5) U.S. Coast Guard;
(6) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP);
(7) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); and
(8) U.S. Secret Service.
(b)(1) DHS will treat employees of DHS components not designated as separate agencies in paragraph (a) of this section, including employees of the Office of the Secretary, as employees of the remainder of DHS. For purposes of the regulations in subpart B of 5 CFR part 2635 governing gifts from outside sources, including determining whether
(2) For the limited purposes of establishing procedures for obtaining prior approval for outside employment and designating officials pursuant to § 4601.103(c) of this part, DHS will treat the DHS Office of Inspector General as a separate agency.
(c) An employee on detail from his or her employing agency to another agency for a period in excess of 30 calendar days is subject to the supplemental regulations and instructions of the agency to which he is detailed rather than his or her employing agency.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) The instructions or manual may exempt particular outside employment or activities (or categories or classes of outside employment or activities) from the prior approval requirement of this section if such outside employment or activities would generally be approved and are not likely to involve conduct prohibited by statute or Federal regulation, including 5 CFR part 2635 and this part. Agencies may include in their instructions or manual examples of outside employment or activities that are permissible or prohibited consistent with 5 CFR part 2635 and this part.
(3) In the absence of a manual or instruction identifying a person designated to act upon a request for approval for outside employment, the Chief Deputy Ethics Official at each agency shall act upon a request.
The following rules apply to employees of CBP, except Special Government Employees, and are in addition to §§ 4601.101 through 4601.103 and §§ 4601.107 and 4601.108 of this part:
(a)
(2) No CBP employee shall, in any private capacity, engage in employment or a business activity related to the importation or exportation of merchandise or agricultural products requiring inspection (other than a personal, routine consumer transaction unrelated to the operation of a business), or the entry of persons into or departure of persons from the United States.
(3) No CBP employee shall engage in outside employment or activities for a non-profit or other organization that involve assisting persons with matters related to the entry of persons or merchandise into or the departure of persons or merchandise from the United States, or matters related to obtaining temporary or permanent residency, citizenship, adjustment of status, or other immigration-related benefits.
(b)
(i) The spouse of the CBP employee is employed in a position that the CBP employee would be prohibited from occupying by paragraph (a) of this section;
(ii) A relative (as defined in 5 CFR 2634.105(o)), who is financially dependent on or who is a member of the household of the CBP employee, is employed in a position that the CBP employee would be prohibited from occupying by paragraph (a) of this section; or
(iii) Any person, other than the spouse or relative of the CBP employee, who is financially dependent on or who is a member of the household of the CBP employee, is employed in a position that the CBP employee would be prohibited from occupying by paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) The CBP employee shall be disqualified from participating in an official capacity in any particular matter involving the individuals identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, or the employer thereof, unless the agency designee, with the advice and clearance of the CBP Chief Deputy Ethics Official, authorizes the CBP employee to participate in the matter using the standard in 5 CFR 2635.502(d), or the waiver provisions in 18 U.S.C. 208(b)(1), as appropriate.
The following rules apply to employees of FEMA, except Special Government Employees, and are in addition to §§ 4601.101 through 4601.103 and 4601.107 and 4601.108 of this part:
(a)
(b)
(c)
The following rules apply to employees of ICE, except Special Government Employees, and are in addition to §§ 4601.101 through 4601.103 and 4601.107 and 4601.108 of this part:
(a)
(2) No ICE employee shall, in any private capacity, engage in employment or a business activity related to the importation or exportation of merchandise or agricultural products requiring inspection (other than a personal, routine consumer transaction unrelated to the operation of a business), or the entry of persons into or the departure of persons from the United States.
(3) No ICE employee shall engage in outside employment or activities for a non-profit or other organization that involve assisting persons with matters related to the entry of persons or merchandise into or the departure of persons or merchandise from the United States, or matters related to obtaining temporary or permanent residency, citizenship, adjustment of status, or other immigration-related benefits.
(b)
(i) The spouse of the ICE employee is employed in a position that the ICE employee would be prohibited from occupying by paragraph (a) of this section;
(ii) A relative (as defined in 5 CFR 2634.105(o)) who is financially dependent on or who is a member of the household of the ICE employee is employed in a position that the ICE employee would be prohibited from occupying by paragraph (a) of this section; or
(iii) Any person, other than the spouse or relative of the ICE employee, who is financially dependent on or who is a member of the household of the ICE employee, is employed in a position that the ICE employee would be prohibited from occupying by paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) The ICE employee shall be disqualified from participating in an official capacity in any particular matter involving the individuals described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section or the employer thereof, unless the agency designee, with the advice and clearance of the ICE Chief Deputy Ethics Official, authorizes the ICE employee to participate in the matter using the standard in 5 CFR 2635.502(d), or the waiver provisions in 18 U.S.C. 208(b)(1), as appropriate.
(a)
(1) Owned by the Federal Government and under the control of the employee's agency, unless the sale of the property is being conducted by the General Services Administration; or
(2) Seized or forfeited under the direction or incident to the functions of the employee's agency.
(b)
(c)
Employees shall disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption to appropriate authorities, such as the DHS Office of Inspector General.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Correcting amendment.
This document contains a correction to the final regulations which were published in the
Effective February 5, 2016.
Navid Choudhury, Counsel, Consumer Compliance Section, Legal Division, (202) 898-6526 or
The final regulations that are the subject of this correction implement certain provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 and the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014.
As published, the final regulations contain an error which may prove to be misleading and needs to be clarified.
Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
Accordingly, 12 CFR part 339 is corrected by making the following amendments:
12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1819 (Tenth), 5412(b)(2)(C) and 42 U.S.C. 4012a, 4104a, 4104b, 4106, and 4128.
Social Security Administration.
Final rule.
This final rule adopts the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that we published in the
Maren Weight, Office of Appellate Operations, Social Security Administration, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041, 703-605-7100. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at
This final rule adopts the NPRM that we published in the
In the NPRM, we provided a 30-day comment period, which ended on November 20, 2015. We received no comments. We explained our reasons for proposing the rule which we are now adopting as a final rule in the preamble to the NPRM (80 FR at 63718-63719), and we incorporate that discussion here.
We find good cause for dispensing with the 30-day delay in the effective date of this final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). For the reasons discussed in the preamble to the NPRM, we are making a minor change to our current rules by discontinuing the practice of having the AC return additional evidence that it receives when the AC determines the additional evidence does not relate to the period on or before the date of the ALJ's decision. We now use many electronic services that make the practice of returning evidence unnecessary. For example, we now scan most of the medical evidence into the electronic claim(s) file or appointed representatives submit it through our Electronic Records Express system. This technology immediately uploads records into a claimant's electronic folder, making the records available for review in real time. As a result, it is neither administratively efficient nor cost effective for us to print out documents that have been submitted to us electronically by a claimant or appointed representative in order to return them to the claimant.
The change we are making in this final rule will allow us to better utilize our limited administrative resources. For these reasons, we find that it is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of our final rule.
We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that this final rule does not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Thus, OMB did not review the final rule.
We certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it applies to individuals only. Thus, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.
These Final Rules do not create any new or affect any existing collections and, therefore, do not require Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Administrative practice and procedure; Blind; Disability benefits; Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Social Security.
Administrative practice and procedure; Aged, Blind, Disability benefits, Public Assistance programs; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we amend 20 CFR chapter III, part 404 and part 416, as set forth below:
Secs. 201(j), 204(f), 205(a)-(b), (d)-(h), and (j), 221, 223(i), 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(j), 404(f), 405(a)-(b), (d)-(h), and (j), 421, 423(i), 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 5, Pub. L. 97-455, 96 Stat. 2500 (42 U.S.C. 405 note); secs. 5, 6(c)-
(b) * * * (1) The Appeals Council will consider all the evidence in the administrative law judge hearing record as well as any new and material evidence submitted to it that relates to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge hearing decision. If you submit evidence that does not relate to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge hearing decision, the Appeals Council will explain why it did not accept the additional evidence and will advise you of your right to file a new application. The notice will also advise you that if you file a new application within 6 months after the date of the Appeals Council's notice, your request for review will constitute a written statement indicating an intent to claim benefits in accordance with § 404.630. If you file a new application within 6 months of the date of this notice, we will use the date of the request for review as the filing date for your application.
Secs. 702(a)(5), 1631, and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1383, and 1383b); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).
(b) * * * (1) In reviewing decisions based on an application for benefits, the Appeals Council will consider the evidence in the administrative law judge hearing record as well as any new and material evidence submitted to it that relates to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge hearing decision. If you submit evidence that does not relate to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge hearing decision, the Appeals Council will explain why it did not accept the additional evidence and will advise you of your right to file a new application. The notice will also advise you that if you file a new application within 60 days after the date of the Appeals Council's notice, your request for review will constitute a written statement indicating an intent to claim benefits in accordance with § 416.340. If you file a new application within 60 days of the date of this notice, we will use the date of the request for review as the filing date for your application.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Final order.
The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is issuing this final order to temporarily schedule the synthetic cannabinoid
This final order is effective February 5, 2016.
Barbara J. Boockholdt, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, and are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for the purpose of this action. 21 U.S.C. 801-971. The DEA publishes the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while ensuring an adequate supply is available for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.
Under the CSA, every controlled substance is classified into one of five schedules based upon its potential for abuse, its currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and the degree of dependence the drug or other substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The initial schedules of controlled substances established by Congress are found at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), and the current list of all scheduled substances is published at 21 CFR part 1308.
Section 201 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811, provides the Attorney General with the authority to temporarily place a substance into schedule I of the CSA for two years without regard to the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) if she finds that such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). In addition, if proceedings to control a substance are initiated under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), the Attorney General may extend the temporary scheduling for up to one year. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2).
Where the necessary findings are made, a substance may be temporarily scheduled if it is not listed in any other schedule under section 202 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 812, or if there is no exemption or approval in effect for the substance under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
Section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), requires the Administrator to notify the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of the Administrator's intention to temporarily place a substance into schedule I of the CSA.
To find that placing a substance temporarily into schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, the Administrator is required to consider three of the eight factors set forth in section 201(c) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(c): The substance's history and current pattern of abuse; the scope, duration and significance of abuse; and what, if any, risk there is to the public health. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3). Consideration of these factors includes actual abuse, diversion from legitimate channels, and clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3).
A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling may only be placed in schedule I. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). Substances in schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1).
Available data and information for MAB-CHMINACA, summarized below, indicate that this synthetic cannabinoid (SC) has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. The DEA 3-Factor analysis and the Assistant Secretary's June 3, 2015, letter are available in their entirety under the tab “Supporting Documents” of the public docket of this action at
Synthetic cannabinoids (SCs) are substances synthesized in laboratories that mimic the biological effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. It is believed SCs were first introduced into the designer drug market in several European countries as “herbal incense” before the initial encounter in the United States by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in November 2008. From 2009 to present, misuse of SCs has increased in the United States with law enforcement encounters describing plant material laced with SCs intended for human consumption. It has been demonstrated that the substances and the associated designer products are abused for their psychoactive properties. With many generations of SCs being encountered since 2009, MAB-CHMINACA is one of the latest, and based upon reports from public health sources and law enforcement, the misuse and abuse of this substance is negatively impacting the public health and communities.
The designer drug products laced with SCs, including MAB-CHMINACA, are often sold under the guise of “herbal incense” or “potpourri,” use various product names, and are routinely labeled “not for human consumption.” Additionally, these products are marketed as a “legal high” or “legal alternative to marijuana” and are readily available over the Internet, in head shops, and sold in convenience stores. There is an incorrect assumption that these products are safe, and that labeling these products as “not for human consumption” is a legal defense to criminal prosecution.
MAB-CHMINACA is an SC that has pharmacological effects similar to the schedule I hallucinogen THC and other temporarily and permanently controlled schedule I substances. MAB-CHMINACA has been shown to cause severe toxicity and adverse health effects following ingestion, including seizures, excited delirium, cardiotoxicity and death. With no approved medical use and limited safety or toxicological information, MAB-CHMINACA has emerged on the illicit drug market and is being abused for its psychoactive properties.
SCs were first encountered by CBP within the United States in November 2008. Since then, the popularity of SCs and their associated products has increased steadily as evidenced by law enforcement seizures, public health information, and media reports. Despite multiple administrative and legislative actions to place SCs found on the illicit market into schedule I of the CSA, new generations of SCs intended to circumvent current law continue to be encountered with serious outcomes. Traffickers of these dangerous substances continue to attempt to skirt the law even after multiple control actions demonstrating a lack of regard for public health and safety. MAB-CHMINACA is an SC that was encountered following the hospitalization of 125 individuals around the Baton Rouge, Louisiana area in October 2014 (
On April 29, 2015, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) reported multiple outbreaks of intoxications within the United States resulting from the ingestion of products believed to contain SCs. EMCDDA further reported that MAB-CHMINACA had been implicated in at least some of those cases. EMCDDA also reported on two deaths involving MAB-CHMINACA, one in Hungary and the other in Japan.
A major concern, as reiterated by public health officials and medical professionals, remains the targeting and direct marketing of SCs and SC-containing products to adolescents and youth. This is supported by law enforcement encounters and reports from emergency departments; however, all age groups have been reported by the media as abusing these substances and related products. Individuals, including minors, are purchasing SCs from the Internet, gas stations, convenience stores, and head shops.
Smoking mixtures of these substances for the purpose of achieving intoxication have resulted in numerous emergency department visits and calls to poison control centers. As reported by the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), adverse effects including severe agitation, anxiety, racing heartbeat, high blood pressure, nausea, vomiting, seizures, tremors, intense hallucinations, psychotic episodes, suicide, and other harmful thoughts and/or actions can occur following ingestion of SCs. Presentations at emergency departments directly linked to the abuse of MAB-CHMINACA have resulted in similar symptoms, including severe agitation, seizures and/or death (
As discussed previously, it is believed most abusers of SCs or SC-related products smoke the product following application to plant material. Until recently, this was the preferred route of administration. Law enforcement has also begun to encounter new variations of SCs in liquid form. It is believed abusers have been applying the liquid to hookahs and “e-cigarettes,” which allow the user to administer a vaporized liquid that can be inhaled.
Following multiple scheduling actions designed to safeguard the public from the adverse effects and safety issues associated with SCs, encounters by law enforcement and health care professionals indicate the continued abuse of these substances and their associated products. With each action to control SCs, illicit drug manufacturers and suppliers are adapting at an alarmingly quick pace to design new SCs in an attempt to circumvent regulatory controls. Even before DEA temporarily controlled the latest group of SCs, AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, and THJ-2201, on January 30, 2015, MAB-CHMINACA was already available on the illicit market and responsible for overdoses and deaths (
On October 29, 2014, the State of Louisiana issued an emergency rule adding
Poison control centers continue to report the abuse of SCs and their associated products. These substances remain a threat to both the short- and long-term public health and safety. Exposures to SCs were first reported to the AAPCC in 2011. The most alarming report via the AAPCC was published on April 23, 2015. The AAPCC reported a dramatic spike in poison center exposure calls throughout the United States in 2015. The AAPCC reported 1,512 exposure calls in April 2015, representing an almost three-fold increase in exposures to SCs as compared to the previous largest monthly tally (657 exposures in January 2012) since reporting began in 2011. It is likely that many of the calls are directly attributable to the abuse of MAB-CHMINACA based on its high prevalence in drug seizure reports and specimen test reports (
The following information regarding MAB-CHMINACA was obtained through NFLIS
MAB-CHMINACA: NFLIS-451 reports; first encountered in September 2014; locations include Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
MAB-CHMINACA was identified in a cluster of 125 subjects that presented to emergency facilities within the Baton Rouge and Shreveport, Louisiana areas in October 2014. On October 29, 2014, the Louisiana Secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals announced the addition of MAB-CHMINACA into schedule I of the Controlled Dangerous Substances section of the Louisiana Administrative Code (La. Admin. Code tit. 46, § 2704 (2014)). From October 2014 to the present, multiple clusters of overdoses involving MAB-CHMINACA and at least four deaths attributed to the misuse and abuse of MAB-CHMINACA have been reported (
Since abusers obtain these drugs through unknown sources, the identity, purity, and quantity of these substances is uncertain and inconsistent, thus posing significant adverse health risks to users. The SCs encountered on the illicit drug market have no accepted medical use within the United States. Regardless, SC products continue to be easily available and abused by diverse populations. Unknown factors including detailed product analysis and dosage variations between various packages and batches present a significant danger to an abusing individual. Similar to previous SCs, MAB-CHMINACA has been found on plant material. Designer drug products have been found to vary in the amount and type of SC that plant material is laced with, which could be
Based on the data and information summarized above, the continued uncontrolled handling and abuse of MAB-CHMINACA poses an imminent hazard to the public safety. The DEA is not aware of any currently accepted medical uses for MAB-CHMINACA in the United States. A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling may only be placed in schedule I of the CSA. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). Substances in schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Available data and information for MAB-CHMINACA indicate that this substance has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. As required by section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Administrator, through a letter dated May 14, 2015, notified the Assistant Secretary of the DEA's intention to temporarily place this substance in schedule I. The Assistant Secretary responded to this notice by letter dated June 3, 2015, and stated that the HHS had no objection to the temporary placement of MAB-CHMINACA into schedule I. A notice of intent was subsequently published in the
In accordance with the provisions of section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), the Administrator considered available data and information, herein set forth the grounds for his determination that it is necessary to temporarily schedule MAB-CHMINACA into schedule I of the CSA, and finds that placement of this SC into schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.
Because the Administrator hereby finds that it is necessary to temporarily place this SC into schedule I of the CSA to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, the final order temporarily scheduling this substance will be effective on the date of publication in the
The CSA sets forth specific criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Regular scheduling actions in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a) are subject to formal rulemaking procedures done “on the record after opportunity for a hearing” conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. 21 U.S.C. 811. The regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking affords interested parties with appropriate process and the government with any additional relevant information needed to make a determination. Final decisions that conclude the regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking are subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 877. Temporary scheduling orders are not subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(6).
Upon the effective date of this final order, MAB-CHMINACA will be subject to the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, importation, exportation, engagement in research, and conduct of instructional activities or chemical analysis with, and possession of schedule I controlled substances including the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), provides for an expedited temporary scheduling action where such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. As provided in this subsection, the Attorney General may, by order, schedule a substance in schedule I on a temporary basis. Such an order may not be issued before the expiration of 30 days from (1) the publication of a notice in the
Inasmuch as section 201(h) of the CSA directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued, the DEA believes that the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) at 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this temporary scheduling action. In the alternative, even assuming that this action might be subject to 5 U.S.C. 553, the Administrator finds that there is good cause to forgo the notice and comment requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553, as any further delays in the process for issuance of temporary scheduling orders would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest in view of the manifest urgency to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.
Further, the DEA believes that this temporary scheduling action final order is not a “rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and, accordingly, is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The requirements for the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603(a) are not applicable where, as here, the DEA is not required by the APA or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking.
Additionally, this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 3(f), and, accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This action 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, in accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
As noted above, this action is an order, not a rule. Accordingly, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) is inapplicable, as it applies only to rules. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). It is in the public interest to schedule this substance immediately because it poses a public health risk. This temporary scheduling action is taken pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h), which is specifically designed to enable the DEA to act in an expeditious manner to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. Under 21 U.S.C. 811(h), temporary scheduling orders are not subject to notice and comment rulemaking procedures. The DEA understands that the CSA frames temporary scheduling actions as orders rather than rules to ensure that the process moves swiftly. For the same reasons that underlie 21 U.S.C. 811(h), that is, the need to move quickly to place this substance into schedule I because it poses an imminent hazard to public safety, it would be contrary to the public interest to delay implementation of the temporary scheduling order. Therefore, this order shall take effect immediately upon its publication.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out above, the DEA amends 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
(25)
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Final order.
The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is issuing this final order to extend the temporary schedule I status of four synthetic cannabinoids pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of the Controlled Substances Act. The substances are: quinolin-8-yl 1-pentyl-1
This final order is effective February 5, 2016.
Barbara J. Boockholdt, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implements and
The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while ensuring an adequate supply is available for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.
Under the CSA, every controlled substance is classified into one of five schedules based upon its potential for abuse, its currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and the degree of dependence the drug or other substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The initial schedules of controlled substances established by Congress are found at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), and the current list of all scheduled substances is published at 21 CFR part 1308.
Section 201 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811, provides the Attorney General with the authority to temporarily place a substance into schedule I of the CSA for two years without regard to the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) if she finds that such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). In addition, if proceedings to control a substance are initiated under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), the Attorney General may extend the temporary scheduling for up to one year. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2).
Where the necessary findings are made, a substance may be temporarily scheduled if it is not listed in any other schedule under section 202 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 812, or if there is no exemption or approval in effect for the substance under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 355. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). The Attorney General has delegated her scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100.
On February 10, 2014, the DEA published a final order in the
The Administrator of the DEA, on his own motion pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), has initiated proceedings under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) to permanently schedule PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA. The DEA has gathered and reviewed the available information regarding the pharmacology, chemistry, trafficking, actual abuse, pattern of abuse, and the relative potential for abuse for these four synthetic cannabinoids. On December 30, 2014, the DEA submitted a request to the HHS to provide the DEA with a scientific and medical evaluation of available information and a scheduling recommendation for PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA, and in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811 (b) and (c). Upon evaluating the scientific and medical evidence, on January 19, 2016, the HHS submitted to the Administrator of the DEA its four scientific and medical evaluations for these substances. Upon receipt of the scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendations from the HHS, the DEA reviewed the documents and all other relevant data, and conducted its own eight-factor analysis of the abuse potential of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(c). The DEA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for the placement of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA into schedule I elsewhere in this issue of the
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2), the Administrator of the DEA orders that the temporary scheduling of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA, including their optical, positional and geometric isomers, salts, and salts of isomers, be extended for one year, or until the permanent scheduling proceeding is completed, whichever occurs first.
In accordance with this final order, the schedule I requirements for handling PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA, including their optical, positional and geometric isomers, salts, and salts of isomers, will remain in effect for one year, or until the permanent scheduling proceeding is completed, whichever occurs first.
The CSA provides for an expedited temporary scheduling action where such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h). The Attorney General may, by order, schedule a substance in schedule I on a temporary basis.
To the extent that 21 U.S.C. 811(h) directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued and extended, the DEA believes that the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the
Additionally, this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 3(f), and, accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This action 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, in accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
As noted above, this action is an order, not a rule. Accordingly, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) is inapplicable, as it applies only to rules. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). It is in the public interest to maintain the temporary placement of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA in schedule I because they pose a public health risk. The temporary scheduling action was taken pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h), which is specifically designed to enable the DEA to act in an expeditious manner to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. Under 21 U.S.C. 811(h), temporary scheduling orders are not subject to notice and comment rulemaking procedures. The DEA understands that the CSA frames temporary scheduling actions as orders rather than rules to ensure that the process moves swiftly, and this extension of the temporary scheduling order continues to serve that purpose. For the same reasons that underlie 21 U.S.C. 811(h), that is, the need to place these substances in schedule I because they pose an imminent hazard to public safety, it would be contrary to the public interest to delay implementation of this extension of the temporary scheduling order. Therefore, in accordance with section 808(2) of the CRA, this final order extending the temporary scheduling order shall take effect immediately upon its publication. The DEA has submitted a copy of this final order to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General, although such filing is not required under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional Review Act), 5 U.S.C. 801-808 because, as noted above, this action is an order, not a rule.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor.
Final rule.
This document announces the publication of the regulatory provisions which formalize the initial approval of the Maine State and Local Government Only State Plan.
Effective February 5, 2016. Initial approval of the Maine State Plan was granted on August 5, 2015.
On May 20, 2015, OSHA published a notice in the
OSHA, after carefully reviewing the Maine State Plan for the development and enforcement of state standards applicable to state and local government employers and the record developed during the above described proceedings, determined that the requirements and criteria for initial approval of a developmental State Plan were met. The Plan was approved as a developmental State Plan for State and Local Government Only under Section 18 of the OSH Act on August 5, 2015. (80 FR 46487).
In light of the reorganization of the State Plan regulations through the streamlining of 29 CFR part 1952 and 29 CFR part 1956, OSHA deferred any change to those regulatory provisions relating to the Maine State Plan until the streamlining changes took effect. (80 FR 46487, 46492). These streamlining changes took effect October 19, 2015. (80 FR 49897, Aug. 18, 2015). Therefore OSHA is now amending 29 CFR part 1952 to incorporate the description of the Maine State Plan.
OSHA certifies pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” emphasizes consultation between Federal agencies and the states and establishes specific review procedures the Federal Government must follow as it carries out policies that affect state or local governments. OSHA has consulted extensively with Maine throughout the development, submission and consideration of its State Plan. Although OSHA has determined that the requirements and consultation procedures provided in Executive Order 13132 are not applicable to initial approval decisions under the OSH Act, which have no effect outside the particular state receiving the approval, OSHA has reviewed this final rule, and believes it is consistent with the principles and criteria set forth in the Executive Order.
This
Today's action is solely a formalization of the initial approval of the Maine State Plan, which was granted on August 5, 2015 (80 FR 46487).
Intergovernmental relations, Law enforcement, Occupational safety and health.
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, authorized the preparation of this notice. OSHA is issuing this notice under the authority specified by Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 667), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), and 29 CFR parts 1902 and 1956.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble of this final rule, 29 CFR part 1952 is amended as set forth below.
Sec. 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29 U.S.C. 667); 29 CFR part 1902; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).
(a) The Maine State Plan for State and local government employees received initial approval from the Assistant Secretary on August 5, 2015.
(b) The Plan further provides assurances of a fully trained, adequate staff within three years of plan approval, including 2 safety and 1 health compliance officers for enforcement inspections, and 3 safety and 1 health consultants to perform consultation services in the public sector. The State has assured that it will continue to provide a sufficient number of adequately trained and qualified personnel necessary for the enforcement of standards as required by 29 CFR 1956.10. The State has also given satisfactory assurance of adequate funding to support the Plan.
(c) The plan only covers State and local government employers and employees within the State. For additional details about the plan, please visit
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Norfolk and Western railroad bridge (Norfolk Southern V6.8 Bridge) across the South Branch of the Elizabeth River, mile 3.6, at Portsmouth-Chesapeake, VA. The deviation is necessary to perform bridge maintenance and repairs.
This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on February 5, 2016 to 7 p.m. on February 7, 2016.
The docket for this deviation [USCG-2016-0046] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6222, email
The Norfolk Southern Corporation, that owns and operates the Norfolk and Western railroad bridge (Norfolk Southern V6.8 Bridge), has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations to install new festoon systems between the bridge towers. The bridge is a vertical lift draw bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 10 feet above mean high water.
The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.997(b). Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. from February 5, 2016 through February 7, 2016. During this temporary deviation, the bridge will operate per 33 CFR 117.997(b) from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m.
The South Branch of the Elizabeth River is used by a variety of vessels including deep draft ocean-going
There will be limited opportunity for vessels to transit through the bridge in the closed position during this temporary deviation. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so after receiving confirmation from the bridge tender that it is safe to transit through the bridge. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transit to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on all navigable waters within a 750 foot radius around the center of the Boudreaux Canal Flood Gates in Chauvin, LA. This safety zone is necessary to protect persons, property, and infrastructure from potential damage and safety hazards associated with repair work on the Boudreaux Canal Sector Flood Gates located on Bayou Petite Caillou. During the periods of enforcement, entry into and transiting or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by Captain of the Port (COTP) Morgan City or other designated representative.
This rule is effective without actual notice from February 5, 2016 until February 27, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from January 6, 2016 until February 5, 2016.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Vanessa Taylor, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard MSU Morgan City 800 David Dr., Morgan City, LA 70380; telephone (985) 380-5334, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because repair work on the Boudreaux Canal Sector Flood Gates located on Bayou Petite Caillou needs to be completed before marine traffic increases during the extremely high traffic periods of the upcoming shrimping season. The Coast Guard received notice of the need for this repair December 16, 2015. Repair work pushed to any later date will unnecessarily create major traffic delays. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by January 6, 2016.We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
The purpose of the rule is to establish the necessary temporary safety zone to provide protection for persons and property from the hazards associated with the repairs. This includes commercial and recreational vessels that may be in the area during the repair, removal and re-installation of the Boudreaux Canal Flood Gates.
This rule establishes a safety zone from January 6, 2016 through January 15, 2016 and from February 18, 2016 through February 27, 2016. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within a 750 foot radius around coordinate 29°23.117 N., 90°37.038 W. which is located in center of the Boudreaux Canal Flood Gates. This safety zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the inspection, repair, removal, and re-installation of flood gates occurs. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly,
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and traffic during the time-of-year of the safety zone. The safety zone only impacts a small designated area of the Waterway in Chauvin, LA during two scheduled time periods. First, during 10 days from January 6, 2016 through January 15, 2016; and second during 9 days from February 18, 2016 through February 27, 2016. This is a time of year when vessel traffic is normally low. Additionally, vessel traffic will be allowed to transit from January 16, 2016 through February 17, 2016, mid-way through the repair timeline. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 informing waterway users of the safety zone and any changes in the schedule. Finally, the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting less than 20 days that will prohibit entry within a 750 foot radius around coordinate 29°23.117 N., 90°37.038 W., which is located in the center of the Boudreaux Canal Flood Gates in Chauvin, LA. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (waters), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Morgan City at 985-380-5334. Those in the safety zones must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
(e)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the waters of the Hudson River in the vicinity of Anchorage Ground 19-W. This zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the Hudson River due to the presence of a dielectric oil leak from a submerged power cable, and the hazards associated with the cable repair vessels. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect people and vessels from the hazards associated with this event. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port New York.
This rule is effective without actual notice from February 5, 2016 through July 9, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from January 12, 2016 through February 5, 2016.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Kristina Pundt, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector New York; telephone 718-354-4352, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard received notification of the dielectric oil release from a submerged power cable on January 2, 2016. Thus, waiting for a notice and comment period to run would inhibit the Coast Guard from protecting the public and vessels from the possible hazards associated with this dielectric oil leak and the hazards associated with the cable repairs.
We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231, 33 CFR 1.05-1 and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. The Captain of the Port New York (COTP) has determined that a temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels from the hazards associated with this dielectric oil leak and power cable repairs.
Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movements around the location of the dielectric oil leak will help ensure the safety of persons and property during assessment and response activities and help minimize the associated risks. Therefore, this rule will remain in effect for the time stated herein but will be cancelled if response activities are finished cease before July 9, 2016. The preliminary estimate for completion of the clean-up and cable repairs is February 11, 2016. This TFR provides for an extended enforcement period in case of unforeseen circumstances that prevent the contractors from completing the repairs within their initial estimated timeline.
This rule establishes a safety zone from January 12, 2016 through July 9, 2016. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of Anchorage Ground 19-W and the Hudson River within an area approximately 870-930 yards wide and 1,330-1,335 yards long near Edgewater, NJ.
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. Vessel operators must contact the COTP or an on-scene representative to obtain permission to transit through this safety zone. The COTP or an on-scene representative may be contacted by VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and E.O.s related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, and will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone. This safety zone only affects a small-designated area of the Hudson River waterway for a relatively short duration. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone for approximately 30 days that will prohibit entry within the dielectric oil spill, cleanup, and power cable repair area, and is therefore categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination will be in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) A “on-scene representative” of the COTP is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a Federal, State or local law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the COTP to act on his behalf.
(3) Vessel operators must contact the COTP via the Command Center to obtain permission to enter or operate within the safety zone. The COTP may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at (718) 354-4353. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate within the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP, via the Command Center or an on-scene representative.
Legal Services Corporation.
Final rule.
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC or the Corporation) is required by law to establish maximum income levels for individuals eligible for legal assistance. This document updates the specified income levels to reflect the annual amendments to the Federal Poverty Guidelines issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Effective February 5, 2016.
Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K St. NW., Washington, DC 20007; (202) 295-1563;
Section 1007(a)(2) of the Legal Services Corporation Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2996f(a)(2), requires the Corporation to establish maximum income levels for individuals eligible for legal assistance. Section 1611.3(c) of the Corporation's regulations establishes a maximum income level equivalent to one hundred and twenty-five percent (125%) of the Federal Poverty Guidelines (Guidelines), which HHS is responsible for updating and issuing. 45 CFR 1611.3(c).
Each year, LSC publishes an update to Appendix A of 45 CFR part 1611 to provide client income eligibility standards based on the most recent Guidelines. The figures for 2016, set out below, are equivalent to 125 percent (125%) of the current Guidelines published by HHS on January 25, 2016 (81 FR 4036).
In addition, LSC is publishing a chart listing income levels that are two hundred percent (200%) of the Guidelines. This chart is for reference purposes only as an aid to grant recipients in assessing the financial eligibility of an applicant whose income is greater than 125 percent (125%) of the applicable Guidelines amount, but less than 200 percent (200%) of the applicable Guidelines amount (and who may be found to be financially eligible under duly adopted exceptions to the annual income ceiling in accordance with 45 CFR 1611.3, 1611.4, and 1611.5).
Grant programs—law, Legal services.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, the Legal Services Corporation amends 45 CFR part 1611 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 2996e(b)(1), 2996e(b)(3), 2996f(a)(1), 2996f(a)(2), 2996g(e); Sec. 509(h), Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321; Pub. L. 105-119, 11 Stat. 2512.
In Proposed Rule document 2016-01083 beginning on page 3970 in the issue of Monday, January 25, 2016, make the following correction:
On page 3975, in the third column, preceding amendatory instruction 7 insert the following text:
▪ 6. In § 800.72(b), remove the reference “§ 800.71” from the first sentence and add in its place the reference “§ 800.71(a)(1)”.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period.
We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 2009-15-17 to continue to require inspections for damage to the protective treatments or any corrosion of all main landing gear (MLG) bogie beams, application of protective treatments, and corrective action if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to require modification of the MLG bogie beams, to allow optional methods of compliance for certain actions, and to add airplanes to the applicability. The first supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) proposed to revise the compliance times and add a one-time inspection for certain airplanes. The NPRM was prompted by reports of thin paint coats and paint degradation on enhanced MLG bogie beams. This second SNPRM proposes to clarify the required actions and the specific configurations to which the actions must be applied. We are proposing this second SNPRM to detect and correct damage or corrosion of the MLG bogie beams, which could cause a runway excursion event, bogie beam detachment from the airplane, or MLG collapse, and could result in damage to the airplane and injury to the occupants. Since these actions impose an additional burden over those proposed in the first SNPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.
We must receive comments on this SNPRM by March 21, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For Airbus service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; email:
For Messier-Dowty service information identified in this NPRM, contact Messier-Dowty: Messier Services Americas, Customer Support Center, 45360 Severn Way, Sterling, VA 20166-8910; telephone 703-450-8233; fax 703-404-1621; Internet:
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; fax: 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued an SNPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, Model A330-200 and A330-300 series airplanes, and Model A340-200 and A340-300 series airplanes. The SNPRM published in the
We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the
The SNPRM (79 FR 12414, March 5, 2014) (“the first SNPRM”) proposed to revise the compliance times and add a one-time inspection for airplanes that were inspected too early.
Since we issued the first SNPRM, we have determined that it is necessary to clarify the required actions and the specific configurations to which the actions must be applied. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2013-0267R1, dated March 4, 2014, Corrected May 8, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter, -200, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
The operator of an A330 aeroplane (which has a common bogie beam with the A340) reported a fracture of the Right Hand (RH) main landing gear (MLG) bogie beam, which occurred while turning during low speed taxi maneuvers. The bogie fractured aft of the pivot point and remained attached to the sliding tube by the brake torque reaction rods. After this RH bogie failure, the aeroplane continued for approximately 40 meters on the forks of the sliding member before coming to rest on the taxiway.
The investigations revealed that this event was due to corrosion pitting occurring on the bore of the bogie beam.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to a runway excursion event or to detachment of the bogie from the aeroplane, or to MLG collapse, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to the occupants.
To enable early detection and repair of corrosion of the internal surfaces, EASA issued EASA AD 2007-0314 [
The results of subsequent investigations showed thin paint coats and paint degradation, confirmed as well on Enhanced MLG bogie beams. To address this additional concern, EASA issued AD 2011-0141 [
Prompted by in-service requests, EASA issued EASA AD 2012-0015 [
Reports on inspection results provided to Airbus show that some aeroplanes were initially inspected too early (before 4 years and 6 months since aeroplane first flight with bogie beam installed/installed after overhaul) and have not been re-inspected as required.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2012-0015, which is superseded, and redefines the inspection periodicity. This [EASA] AD also introduces a specific one-time inspection for aeroplanes that have been inspected too early.
Prompted by operator comments, this [EASA] AD is revised to clarify the required actions and the specific configurations to which the actions must be applied. Appendix 1 of this [EASA] AD has been amended accordingly.
This [EASA] AD is republished to editorially correct paragraph (4).
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We reviewed the following Airbus service information.
• Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3225, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2012. The service information describes procedures for cleaning the internal bore and accomplishing a detailed inspection of internal surfaces of the left hand (LH) and right hand (RH) MLG bogie beams to detect any damage to the protective treatments and any corrosion, and measuring the paint thickness on the internal bore.
• Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3237, Revision 1, dated October 14, 2011. The service information describes procedures for a detailed inspection for damage and corrosion of the internal bores of the LH and RH MLG bogie beam and repair, as well as modification and re-identification.
• Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4268, Revision 3, dated January 14, 2013. The service information describes procedures for cleaning the internal bore and accomplishing a detailed inspection of internal surfaces of the LH and RH MLG bogie beams to detect any damage to the protective treatments and any corrosion, and measuring the paint thickness on the internal bore.
• Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4279, Revision 1, dated October 14, 2011. The service information describes procedures for a detailed inspection for damage and corrosion of the internal bores of the LH and RH MLG bogie beam, repair, modification, and reidentification.
We reviewed the following Messier-Dowty service bulletins.
• Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-271, Revision 1, dated November 16, 2007. The service information describes procedures for inspections and corrective actions on both MLG bogie beams.
• Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-272, Revision 1, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D, dated September 22, 2008. The service information describes procedures for
• Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-278, including Appendixes A and B, Revision 1, dated August 24, 2011. The service information describes procedures for inspections for damage and corrosion to the protective treatment of the internal bores of the LH and RH MLG bogie beam, and repairs.
• Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-283, including Appendix A, Revision 1, dated July 10, 2012. The service information describes procedures for modification of the LH and RH MLG bogie beams.
• Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-284, including Appendix A, Revision 1, dated July 10, 2012. The service information describes procedures for modification of the LH and RH MLG bogie beams.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
Since the first SNPRM was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of the proposed AD (in the first SNPRM) have been redesignated as paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) of this proposed AD.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this proposed AD. We considered the comment received.
Air France requested that we revise paragraph (l) of the proposed AD (in the first SNPRM) by changing the references to paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) to refer to paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2).
We agree that the optional terminating action paragraph should refer to the optional methods of compliance paragraphs, which are paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of the proposed AD (in the first SNPRM). However, no change to this proposed AD is necessary because those paragraphs have been redesignated as paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2).
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
Certain changes described above expand the scope of the first SNPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.
The MCAI specifies repair and corrective actions in accordance with Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3225, Revision 02, dated October 26, 2012; or A340-32-4268, Revision 03, dated January 14, 2013. However, Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletins A330-32-3225, Revision 02, dated October 26, 2012; and A340-32-4268, Revision 03, dated January 14, 2013; do not describe repair and corrective actions. Paragraphs (i) and (j) of this proposed AD specify repair and corrective actions in accordance with Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-272, Revision 1, including Appendices A, B, C, and D, dated September 22, 2008. This difference has been coordinated with Airbus.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 51 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 34 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD, and 1 work-hour per product for reporting. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $151,725, or $2,975 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 10 work-hours, for a cost of $850 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this proposed AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this proposed AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this proposed AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by March 21, 2016.
This AD replaces AD 2009-15-17, Amendment 39-15980 (74 FR 37523, July 29, 2009).
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers (MSN), except those on which Airbus modification 58896 has been embodied in production.
(1) Airbus Model A330-223F, -243F, -201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.
This AD was prompted by reports of thin paint coats and paint degradation on enhanced main landing gear (MLG) bogie beams, as well as reports that some airplanes have been inspected too early and not re-inspected as needed. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damage or corrosion of the MLG bogie beams, which could cause a runway excursion event, bogie beam detachment from the airplane, or MLG collapse, and could result in damage to the airplane and injury to the occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes equipped with basic MLG (201252 series), or growth MLG (201490 series): After 54 months at the earliest, but no later than 72 months since the left-hand (LH) or right-hand (RH) MLG bogie beam's first flight on an airplane, or since its first flight on an airplane after overhaul, as applicable, clean the internal bore and accomplish a detailed inspection of internal surfaces of the LH and RH MLG bogie beams to detect any damage to the protective treatments and any corrosion, and measure the paint thickness on the internal bore, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3225, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2012; or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4268, Revision 3, dated January 14, 2013; as applicable. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not less than 54 months, but not exceeding 72 months, after the most recent inspection. During overhaul of a MLG bogie beam, any corrosion will be removed, which means that the first inspection after overhaul of that MLG bogie beam, as required by this paragraph, is between 54 months and 72 months since its first flight on an airplane after overhaul.
For airplanes equipped with basic MLG (201252 series), or growth MLG (201490 series) having a LH or RH MLG bogie beam that has already exceeded 72 months since its first flight on an airplane, or since its first flight on an airplane after overhaul, as applicable, as of the effective date of this AD; and that has been inspected as specified in Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3225 or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4268, as applicable, earlier than 54 months since first flight of the affected MLG bogie beam on an airplane, or since its first flight on an airplane after its most recent overhaul, as applicable: Within the applicable compliance time indicated in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(4) of this AD, clean the internal bore and accomplish a detailed inspection of the internal surfaces of the LH and RH MLG bogie beams to detect any damage to the protective treatments and any corrosion, and measure the paint thickness on the internal bore, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3225, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2012; or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4268, Revision 3, dated January 14, 2013; as applicable.
(1) For MLG bogie beams having the configurations specified in both paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD: Do the detailed inspection specified in paragraph (h) of this AD within 9 months after the effective date of this AD.
(i) MLG bogie beams having between 72 and 120 months since first flight on an airplane, or since the MLG bogie beam's first flight on an airplane after the MLG bogie beam's most recent overhaul, as applicable.
(ii) MLG bogie beams on which the first inspection was done after 51 months and before 54 months since first flight of the MLG bogie beam on an airplane, or since the MLG bogie beam's first flight on an airplane after the MLG bogie beam's most recent overhaul, as applicable.
(2) For MLG bogie beams having the configurations specified in both paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD: Do the detailed inspection specified in paragraph (h) of this AD within 3 months after the effective date of this AD.
(i) MLG bogie beams having between 72 and 120 months since first flight on an airplane, or since the MLG bogie beam's first flight on an airplane after the MLG bogie beam's most recent overhaul, as applicable.
(ii) MLG bogie beams on which the first inspection was done after 45 months and before 51 months since first flight of the MLG bogie beam on an airplane, or since the MLG bogie beam's first flight on an airplane after the MLG bogie beam's most recent overhaul, as applicable.
(3) For MLG bogie beams having the configurations specified in both paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (h)(3)(ii) of this AD: Do the detailed inspection specified in paragraph (h) of this AD within 3 months after the effective date of this AD.
(i) MLG bogie beams having between 72 and 96 months since first flight on an airplane, or since the MLG bogie beam's first flight on an airplane after the MLG bogie beam's most recent overhaul, as applicable.
(ii) MLG bogie beams which has accumulated, at the effective date of this AD, less than 96 months and on which the first inspection was done before 51 months since first flight of the MLG bogie beam on an airplane, or since the MLG bogie beam's first flight on an airplane after the after the MLG bogie beam's most recent overhaul, as applicable.
(4) For MLG bogie beams having the configurations specified in both paragraphs (h)(4)(i) and (h)(4)(ii) of this AD: Do the detailed inspection specified in paragraph (h) of this AD within 1 month after the effective date of this AD.
(i) MLG bogie beams having between 96 and 120 months since first flight on an airplane, or since the MLG bogie beam's first flight on an airplane after the MLG bogie beam's most recent overhaul, as applicable.
(ii) MLG bogie beams which has accumulated, at the effective date of this AD, 96 months or more and on which the first inspection was done before 45 months since first flight of the MLG bogie beam on an airplane, or since the MLG bogie beam's first flight on an airplane after the MLG bogie beam's most recent overhaul, as applicable.
If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, no damage or corrosion is found, before further flight, apply the protective treatments to the MLG bogie beam, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-272, Revision 1, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D, dated September 22, 2008.
If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, any damage
For airplanes equipped with basic MLG (201252 series), growth MLG (201490 series), or enhanced MLG (10-210 series): Before the accumulation of 252 total months on an MLG bogie beam, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do the actions specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD concurrently and in sequence.
(1) Except as provided by paragraph (k)(3) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection for damage and corrosion of the internal bores of the LH and RH MLG bogie beam, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3237 or A340-32-4279, both Revision 1, both dated October 14, 2011, as applicable. If any damage or corrosion is found, before further flight, repair in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3237 or A340-32-4279, both Revision 1, both dated October 14, 2011, as applicable.
(2) Except as provided by paragraph (k)(3) of this AD: Modify and re-identify, as applicable, the LH and RH MLG bogie beams, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3237 or A340-32-4279, both Revision 1, both dated October 14, 2011, as applicable.
(3) The inspection requirements of paragraph (k)(1) of this AD, and the modification requirements only of paragraph (k)(2) of this AD, do not apply to any MLG bogie beam with a serial number listed in Appendix A of Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-283 or A33/34-32-284, both Revision 1, both dated July 10, 2012, as applicable.
Inspections and corrective actions on both MLG bogie beams done in accordance with the instructions of Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-271, Revision 1, dated November 16, 2007; or A33/34-32-272, Revision 1, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D, dated September 22, 2008; as applicable; are acceptable methods of compliance for the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, provided each inspection is accomplished between 54 months and 72 months since the first flight of the affected MLG bogie beam on an airplane, or since the MLG bogie beam's first flight after the MLG bogie beam's most recent overhaul, as applicable.
(1) Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of each inspection required by paragraph (g) or (k) of this AD, as applicable, to Airbus, Customer Service Directorate, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, using the applicable reporting sheet in Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3237, Revision 1, dated October 14, 2011; or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4279, Revision 1, dated October 14, 2011; at the applicable time specified in paragraph (m)(1)(i) or (m)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the inspection.
(ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of the inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD to Airbus, Customer Service Directorate, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, using the applicable reporting sheet in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3237 or A340-32-4279, both dated January 18, 2011, at the applicable time specified in paragraph (m)(2)(i) or (m)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
(ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(1) Inspections for damage and corrosion to the protective treatment of the internal bores of the LH and RH MLG bogie beam, and repairs, done in accordance with Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-278, including Appendixes A and B, Revision 1, dated August 24, 2011, are acceptable methods of compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.
(2) Modification of the LH and RH MLG bogie beams, done in accordance with Messier-Dowty Service Bulletins A33/34-32-283 and A33/34-32-284, both including Appendix A, both Revision 1, both dated July 10, 2012, as applicable, is an acceptable method of compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraph (k)(2) of this AD.
Modification of both LH and RH MLG bogie beams on an airplane, done in accordance with paragraph (k) of this AD, or as specified in paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) of this AD, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for this airplane.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding inspections and corrective actions done on an LH or RH MLG bogie beam required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3225, dated November 21, 2007; or Revision 1, dated October 30, 2008; provided the inspections and corrective actions were accomplished between 54 months and 72 months since first flight of the affected MLG bogie beam on an airplane, or since its first flight after the MLG bogie beam's most recent overhaul, as applicable. Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3225, dated November 21, 2007, is not incorporated by reference in this AD. Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3225, Revision 1, dated October 30, 2008, was incorporated by reference in AD 2009-15-07, Amendment 39-15980 (74 FR 37523, July 29, 2009).
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding inspections and corrective actions done on an LH or RH MLG bogie beam required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4268, dated November 21, 2007; Revision 1, dated October 30, 2008; or Revision 2, dated October 26, 2012; provided these inspections and corrective actions were accomplished between 54 months and 72 months since first flight of the affected MLG bogie beam on an airplane, or since its first flight after the MLG bogie beam's most recent overhaul, as applicable. Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4268, dated November 21, 2007; and Revision 2, dated October 26, 2012; are not incorporated by reference in this AD. Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4268, Revision 1, dated October 30, 2008, was incorporated by reference in AD 2009-15-17, Amendment 39-15980 (74 FR 37523, July 29, 2009).
(3) This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions required by paragraph (n)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-271, dated September 13, 2007, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(4) This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions required by paragraphs (j) and (n)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-272, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D, dated November 16, 2007, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(5) This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions required by paragraphs (k), (m), and (r)(1)(i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3237, dated January 18, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(6) This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions required by paragraphs (k), (m), and (r)(1)(i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4279, dated January 18, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(7) This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions required by paragraphs (k)(3), (n)(2), (r)(1)(ii), and (r)(1)(iii) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-283, including Appendix A, dated May 11, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(8) This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions required by paragraphs (k)(3), (n)(2), (r)(1)(ii), and
(9) This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions required by paragraphs (n)(1) and (r)(1)(ii) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-278, including Appendixes A and B, dated February 17, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
After accomplishment of the one-time detailed inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, the repetitive actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD remain applicable, and must be done within the compliance times specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) After modification of an airplane, as required by paragraph (k) of this AD, or as specified in paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) of this AD, do not install an MLG bogie beam on any airplane unless it is done in compliance with the requirements of paragraph (r)(1)(i), (r)(1)(ii), or (r)(1)(iii) of this AD.
(i) The MLG bogie beam has been modified and re-identified in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3237 or A340-32-4279, both Revision 1, both dated October 14, 2011, as applicable.
(ii) The MLG bogie beam has been inspected and all applicable corrective actions have been done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-278, Revision 1, dated August 24, 2011; and modified in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-283 or A33/34-32-284, both Revision 1, both dated July 10, 2012.
(iii) The MLG bogie beam has a serial number listed in Appendix A of Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-283 or A33/34-32-284, both Revision 1, both dated July 10, 2012.
(2) As of the effective date of this AD, except as specified in paragraph (r)(1) of this AD, installation of an MLG bogie beam on an airplane is allowed, provided that following the installation it is inspected and all applicable repairs and corrective actions have been done in accordance with the requirements of this AD.
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2013-0267R1, dated March 4, 2014, corrected March 8, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For Airbus service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; email:
(3) For Messier-Dowty service information identified in this AD, contact Messier-Dowty: Messier Services Americas, Customer Support Center, 45360 Severn Way, Sterling, VA 20166-8910; telephone 703-450-8233; fax 703-404-1621; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Drug Enforcement Administration proposes placing quinolin-8-yl 1-pentyl-1
Interested persons may file written comments on this proposal in accordance with 21 CFR 1308.43(g). Comments must be submitted electronically or postmarked on or before March 7, 2016. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period.
Interested persons, defined at 21 CFR 1300.01 as those “adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable pursuant to section 201 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 811),” may file a request for hearing or waiver of hearing pursuant to 21 CFR 1308.44 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1316.45 and/or 1316.47, as applicable. Requests for hearing and waivers of an opportunity for a hearing or to participate in a hearing must be received on or before March 7, 2016.
To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. DEA-433” on all electronic and written correspondence, including any attachments.
•
•
•
Barbara J. Boockholdt, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.
Please note that all comments received in response to this docket are considered part of the public record. They will, unless reasonable cause is given, be made available by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for public inspection online at
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify the confidential business information to be redacted within the comment.
Comments containing personal identifying information or confidential business information identified as directed above will be made publicly available in redacted form. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be made publicly available. Comments posted to
An electronic copy of this document and supplemental information to this proposed rule are available at
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this action is a formal rulemaking “on the record after opportunity for a hearing.” Such proceedings are conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551-559. 21 CFR 1308.41-1308.45; 21 CFR part 1316, subpart D. In accordance with 21 CFR 1308.44(a)-(c), requests for hearing, notices of appearance, and waivers of an opportunity for a hearing or to participate in a hearing may be submitted only by interested persons, defined as those “adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable pursuant to section 201 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 811).” 21 CFR 1300.01. Such requests or notices must conform to the requirements of 21 CFR 1308.44(a) or (b), and 1316.47 or 1316.48, as applicable, and include a statement of interest of the person in the proceeding and the objections or issues, if any, concerning which the person desires to be heard. Any waiver must conform to the requirements of 21 CFR 1308.44(c) and may include a written statement regarding the interested person's position on the matters of fact and law involved in any hearing.
Please note that pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), the purpose and subject matter of a hearing held in relation to this rulemaking is restricted to: “(A) find[ing] that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and (B) mak[ing] with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of section 812 of this title for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed * * *.” All requests for hearing and waivers participation must be sent to the DEA using the address information provided above.
The DEA implements and enforces Titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, and are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for the purpose of this action. 21 U.S.C. 801-971. The DEA publishes the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while providing for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.
Under the CSA, controlled substances are classified into one of five schedules based upon their potential for abuse, their currently accepted medical use, and the degree of dependence the substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The initial schedules of controlled substances established by Congress are found at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), and the current list of scheduled substances is published at 21 CFR part 1308.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), the Attorney General may, by rule, “add to such a schedule or transfer between such schedules any drug or other substance if he (A) finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and (B) makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of section 812 of this title for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed * * *.” The Attorney General has delegated scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100.
The CSA provides that proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of the scheduling of any drug or other substance may be initiated by the Attorney General (1) on her own motion; (2) at the request of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS);
On February 10, 2014, the DEA published a final order in the
These four SCs have not been investigated for medical use nor are they intended for human use. With no known legitimate use and safety information, manufacturers are surreptitiously adulterating plant material with these SCs and distributors are selling the associated products which pose potentially dangerous consequences to the consumer.
The Assistant Secretary of Health for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has advised that there are no exemptions or approvals in effect for PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, or ADB-PINACA under section 505 (21 U.S.C. 355) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. As stated by the HHS, PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA have no known accepted medical use. They are not the subject of any approved new drug applications (NDAs) or investigational new drug applications (INDs), and are not currently marketed as approved drug products. The HHS recommends that PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, ADB-PINACA, and their salts be placed into schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), proceedings to add a drug or substance to those controlled under the CSA may be initiated by the Attorney General, or her delegate, the DEA Administrator. On December 30, 2014, the DEA requested scientific and medical evaluations and scheduling recommendations from the Assistant Secretary of Health for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(b). Upon receipt of the scientific and medical evaluations and scheduling recommendations from the HHS dated January 19, 2016, the DEA reviewed the documents and all other relevant data and conducted its own eight-factor analysis of the abuse potential of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(c). Included below is a brief summary of each factor as analyzed by the HHS and the DEA, and as considered by the DEA in its proposed scheduling action. Please note that both the DEA 8-Factor and HHS 8-Factor analyses and the Assistant Secretary's January 19, 2016, letter, are available in their entirety under the tab “Supporting Documents” of the public docket of this action at
1.
(a) There is evidence that individuals are taking the drug or drugs containing such a substance in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health or to the safety of other individuals or of the community; or
(b) There is significant diversion of the drug or drugs containing such a substance from legitimate drug channels; or
(c) Individuals are taking the drug or drugs containing such a substance on their own initiative rather than on the basis of medical advice from a practitioner licensed by law to administer such drugs in the course of his professional practice; or
(d) The drug or drugs containing such a substance are new drugs so related in their action to a drug or drugs already listed as having a potential for abuse to make it likely that the drug will have the same potentiality for abuse as such drugs, thus making it reasonable to assume that there may be significant diversions from legitimate channels, significant use contrary to or without medical advice, or that it has a substantial capability of creating hazards to the health of the user or to the safety of the community.
Review of scientific and medical literature indicates that the ingestion of synthetic cannabinoids leads to adverse health effects. Specifically, adverse effects following ingestion have included: Seizures, neurotoxicity and death for PB-22; respiratory failure, organ failure, and death for 5F-PB-22; diaphoresis, nausea, confusion, tachycardia and death for AB-FUBINACA; and anxiety, delirium, psychosis, aggression, seizures and death for ADB-PINACA.
The American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) has reported 7,779 exposures to SCs from January 1 through December 31, 2015. The significance of this value is based upon reporting of human exposures to SCs since 2011. While 2012-2014 saw a reduction in exposure calls to the AAPCC, 2015 records demonstrate resurgence in calls to poison centers regarding SCs. In addition, the largest monthly tally ever recorded by AAPCC in reference to SCs occurred in April 2015, with 1,511 calls.
The HHS stated that there are no FDA-approved drug products containing PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA in the United States and there appear to be no legitimate sources for these substances as marketed drugs. According to the HHS, because PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA are not approved for medical use and are not formulated or available for clinical use, the human use of these substances is assumed to be on an individual's own initiative, rather than on the basis of medical advice from a practitioner licensed by law to administer drugs. Further, AAPCC reports, published scientific and medical literature, and law enforcement reports indicate that individuals are
2.
Based on results from the receptor binding (Ki), CB1 functional assay, and drug discrimination studies, the HHS concluded that PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA act as full psychoactive cannabinoid agonists with no antagonist activity and that these four substances are more potent than THC, the principal psychoactive chemical in marijuana (schedule I), and are similar in activity to JWH-018 (schedule I).
3.
4.
5.
AB-FUBINACA is also a synthetic cannabinoid that has pharmacological effects similar to the schedule I hallucinogen THC. First appearing in a 2009 patent filed by the pharmaceutical manufacturer Pfizer, AB-FUBINACA was first reported in the scientific literature as a component of so-called “herbal products” purchased via the Internet in July 2012.
ADB-PINACA was first encountered in the United States following reports of serious adverse events in Georgia on August 23, 2013. Reports of ADB-PINACA were not found in the scientific literature prior to its emergence on the designer drug market. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) reported on September 12, 2013 that ADB-PINACA, was detected in “herbal incense” products sold under the brand name “Crazy Clown.” It was later confirmed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as the substance responsible for severe adverse events in at least 22 persons who consumed the product. In addition, on August 30, 2013, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) was notified by several hospitals of an increase in the number of patients visiting their emergency departments with altered mental status after using synthetic cannabinoids. On September 8, 2013, the CDPHE, with the assistance of the CDC, began an epidemiologic investigation whereby 221 cases of severe illness due to ingestion of a synthetic cannabinoid were identified. Those that presented at emergency rooms in the Denver, Colorado area around September 1, 2013 had symptoms similar to those found in the August 2013 Georgia incident. Laboratory analysis of samples from the Colorado incident confirmed that the substance abused in the “herbal incense” products was ADB-PINACA.
The AAPCC report published on April 23, 2015 showed a marked spike in poison center exposure calls throughout the United States in 2015 related to SCs. The AAPCC reported 1,512 exposure calls in April 2015, representing an almost three-fold increase in exposures to SCs as compared to the previous largest monthly tally (657 exposures in January 2012) since reporting began in 2011. For the first time since reporting began by the AAPCC in 2011, the number of SC cases in 2015 has dramatically risen, more than doubling those reported in 2014. The numbers of SC cases reported in 2015 were the highest ever recorded.
6.
At least ten deaths have been reported involving the four SCs, including at least 3 involving PB-22, 5 involving 5F-PB-22, 1 involving AB-FUBINACA, and 1 involving ADB-PINACA. As mentioned above, there are reported instances of emergency department admissions in association with the abuse of PB-22 and 5F-PB-22. Additional deaths involving a variety of SCs have been reported, along with additional instances of severe toxic effects following ingestion of SCs.
7.
8.
The CSA establishes five schedules of controlled substances known as schedules I, II, III, IV, and V. The CSA also outlines the findings required to place a drug or other substance in any particular schedule. 21 U.S.C. 812(b). After consideration of the analysis and recommendation of the Assistant Secretary for HHS and review of all other available data, the Administrator of the DEA, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a) and 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1), finds that:
1. PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA have a high potential for abuse that is comparable to other schedule I substances such as delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and JWH-018;
2. PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and
3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA under medical supervision.
Based on these findings, the Administrator of the DEA concludes that quinolin-8-yl 1-pentyl-1
If this rule is finalized as proposed, PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA would continue
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
After the initial inventory, every DEA registrant must take a new inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA) on hand every two years, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.
6.
7.
8.
9.
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this proposed scheduling action is subject to formal rulemaking procedures performed “on the record after opportunity for a hearing,” which are conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. The CSA sets forth the criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Such actions are exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to section 3(d)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and the principles reaffirmed in Executive Order 13563.
This proposed regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.
This proposed rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132. The proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13175. It does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.
The Administrator, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-602, has reviewed this proposed rule and by approving it certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. On February 10, 2014, the DEA published a final order to temporarily place these four SCs into schedule I of the CSA pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811(h). The DEA estimates that all entities handling or planning to handle these SCs have already established and implemented the systems and processes required to handle PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, or ADB-PINACA. There are currently 25 registrations authorized to handle PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and/or ADB-PINACA specifically, as well as a number of registered analytical labs that are authorized to handle schedule I controlled substances generally. These 25 registrations represent 18 entities, of which 8 are small entities. Therefore, the DEA estimates eight small entities are affected by this proposed rule.
A review of the 25 registrations indicates that all entities that currently handle PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, or ADB-PINACA also handle other schedule I controlled substances, and have established and implemented (or maintain) the systems and processes required to handle PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, or ADB-PINACA. Therefore, the DEA anticipates that this proposed rule will impose minimal or no economic impact on any affected entities; and thus, will not have a significant economic impact on any of the eight affected small entities. Therefore, the DEA has concluded that this proposed rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not impose a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. This action would not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out above, the DEA proposes to amend 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.
The additions to read as follows:
(d) * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a special local regulation on the waters of Charleston Harbor in Charleston, SC during the Charleston Race Week from April 15, 2016 through April 17, 2016. This special local regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and the general public during the event. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before March 7, 2016.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-1055 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant John Downing, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740-3184, email
On November 18, 2015, the Charleston Ocean Racing Association notified the Coast Guard that it will be sponsoring a series of sailboat races from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. from April 15, 2016 through April 17, 2016. The legal basis for the proposed rule is the Coast Guard's Authority to establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C 1233. The purpose of the proposed rule is to ensure safety of life on the navigable water of the United States during the Charleston Race Week.
The COTP proposes to establish a special local regulation on the waters of Charleston Harbor in Charleston, South Carolina during Charleston Race Week. The races are scheduled to take place from Friday, April 15, 2016 through Sunday, April 17, 2016. Approximately 285 sailboats are anticipated to participate in the races, and approximately 30 spectator vessels are expected to attend the event. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the special local regulation by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and executive orders.
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
The economic impact of this proposed rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) Non-participant persons and vessels may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area during the enforcement periods if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; (2) vessels not able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative may operate in the surrounding areas during the enforcement period; and (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the special local regulation to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owner or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area during the enforcement period. For the reasons discussed in Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
(a) Regulated Area. The rule establishes special local regulations on certain waters of Charleston Harbor in Charleston, South Carolina. The special local regulations will be enforced daily from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. from April 15, 2016 through April 17, 2016. The special local regulations consist of the following three race areas.
1.
2.
3.
(b)
(c)
(1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area, except persons and vessels participating in Charleston Race Week or serving as safety vessels. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843)740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.
(2) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Marine Safety Information Bulletins, Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, DOT.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under international agreement, jointly publish and presently administer the St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules (Practices and Procedures in Canada) in their respective jurisdictions. Under agreement with the SLSMC, the SLSDC is amending the joint regulations by updating the Seaway Regulations and Rules in various categories. The changes will update the following sections of the Regulations and Rules: Condition of Vessels; Seaway Navigation; and, Information and Reports. These amendments are necessary to take account of updated procedures and will enhance the safety of transits through the Seaway. Several of the amendments are merely editorial or for clarification of existing requirements.
Comments are due March 7, 2016.
Carrie Mann Lavigne, Chief Counsel, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 180 Andrews Street, Massena, New York 13662; 315/764-3200.
The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under international agreement, jointly publish and presently administer the St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules (Practices and Procedures in Canada) in their respective jurisdictions. Under agreement with the SLSMC, the SLSDC is amending the joint regulations by updating the Regulations and Rules in various categories. The changes will update the following sections of the Regulations and Rules: Condition of Vessels; Seaway Navigation; and, Information and Reports. These updates are necessary to take account of updated procedures which will enhance the safety of transits through the Seaway. Many of these changes are to clarify existing requirements in the regulations. Where new requirements or regulations are made, an explanation for such a change is provided below.
The SLSDC is amending four sections of the Condition of Vessels portion of the joint Seaway regulations. In section 401.10, “Mooring lines”, the two Corporations are proposing to permit vessels not greater than 200 m in overall length to use soft lines instead of wire lines. Over the past 3 years, vessels greater than 150 m in overall length have been permitted to use type approved soft lines on a test basis, with successful results. Based on these same results, the SLSDC is proposing to amend section 401.11, “Minimum Requirements—mooring lines and fairleads” to permit the operator of vessels of more than 150 m but not more than 200 m to use either soft or wire lines.
In 401.13, “Hand lines”, the SLSDC is proposing to change the maximum diameter of hand lines to 18 mm from 17 mm due to the fact that 17 mm lines are no longer available. The proposed change to 401.17, “Pitch indicators and alarms,” would make a minor administrative change by removing the effective date for the requirement.
In the Seaway Navigation portion of the regulations, the two Corporations are proposing to make changes in several sections. Section 401.29, “Maximum draft”, is being restructured in order to clarify the requirements for use of an operational Draft Information System. In 401.37, “Mooring at tie-up walls”, the Seaway Corporations are proposing to require that crew members handling lines on tie-up walls wear approved personal flotation devices instead of life jackets that can be unsafe due to their bulky nature. The SLSDC is proposing to change the requirement in 401.45, “Emergency procedures”, to make clear that when a vessel is entering the locks too fast in an emergency situation, the vessel will not be required to deploy mooring lines.
In the Information and Reports section, a change to section 401.79, “Advance notice of arrival, vessels requiring inspection” is being proposed that would require all foreign flagged vessels of 300 GRT or above to submit an electronic Notice of Arrival.
The other changes to the joint regulations are merely editorial or to clarify existing requirements.
This proposed regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and therefore Executive Order 12866 does not apply and evaluation under the Department of
I certify that this proposed regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules primarily relate to commercial users of the Seaway, the vast majority of who are foreign vessel operators. Therefore, any resulting costs will be borne mostly by foreign vessels.
This proposed regulation does not require an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (49 U.S.C. 4321,
The Corporation has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and have determined that this proposal does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant a Federalism Assessment.
The Corporation has analyzed this proposed rule under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48) and determined that it does not impose unfunded mandates on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector requiring a written statement of economic and regulatory alternatives.
This proposed regulation has been analyzed under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Office of Management and Budget review.
Hazardous materials transportation, Navigation (water), Penalties, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, Waterways.
Accordingly, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 401, Regulations and Rules, as follows:
33 U.S.C. 983(a) and 984(a)(4), as amended; 49 CFR 1.52, unless otherwise noted.
(b) Unless otherwise permitted by an officer, vessels greater than 200 m shall only use wire mooring lines with a breaking strength that complies with the minimum specifications set out in the table to this section shall be used for securing a vessel in lock chambers.
More than 180 m but not more than 225.5 m * * *
(a) Unless otherwise permitted by the officer the minimum requirements in respect to mooring lines which shall be available for securing on either side of the vessel, winches and the location of fairleads on vessels are as follows:
(1) Vessels of 100 m or less in overall length shall have at least three mooring lines—wires or synthetic hawsers, two of which shall be independently power operated and one if synthetic, may be hand held;
(i) One line shall lead forward from the break of the bow and one line shall lead astern from the quarter and be independently power operated by winches, capstans or windlasses and lead through closed chocks or fairleads acceptable to the Manager and the Corporation; and
(ii) One synthetic hawser may be hand held or if wire line is used shall be powered. The line shall lead astern from the break of the bow through a closed chock to suitable bitts on deck for synthetic line or led from a capstan, winch drums or windlass to an approved fairlead for a wire line.
(2) Vessels of more than 100 m but not more than 150 m in overall length shall have three mooring lines—wires or synthetic hawsers, which shall be independently power operated by winches, capstans or windlasses.
(i) All lines shall be led through closed chocks or fairleads acceptable to the Manager and the Corporation.
(ii) One mooring line shall lead forward and one shall lead astern from the break of the bow and one mooring line shall lead astern from the quarter.
(3) Vessels of more than 150 m but not more than 200 m in overall length shall have four mooring lines, wires or synthetic hawsers, which shall be independently power operated by winches.
(i) One mooring line shall lead forward and one mooring line shall lead astern from the break of the bow.
(ii) One mooring line shall lead forward and one mooring line shall lead astern from the quarter.
(iii) All lines shall be led through a type of fairlead acceptable to the Manager and the Corporation.
(4) Vessels of more than 200 m in overall length shall have four mooring lines—wires, independently power operated by the main drums of adequate power operated winches as follows:
(i) One mooring line shall lead forward and one mooring line shall lead astern from the break of the bow.
(ii) One mooring line shall lead forward and one mooring line shall lead astern from the quarter.
(iii) All lines shall be led through a type of fairlead acceptable to the Manager and the Corporation.
(5) Every vessel shall have a minimum of two spare mooring lines available and ready for immediate use.
(b) Be of uniform thickness and have a diameter of not less than 12 mm and not more than 18 mm and a minimum length of 30 m. The ends of the lines shall be back spliced or tapered; and
(b) Visible and audible pitch alarms, with a time delay of not greater than 8 seconds, in the wheelhouse and engineer room to indicate wrong pitch.
(c) Any vessel will be permitted to load at an increased draft of not more than 7 cm above the maximum permissible draft in effect as prescribed under § 401.29(b) if it is equipped with a Draft Information System (DIS) and meets the following:
(1) An operational Draft Information System (DIS) approved by a member of the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) as compliant with the Implementation Specifications found at
(i) An operational AIS with accuracy = 1 (DGPS); and
(ii) Up-to-date electronic navigational charts; and
(iii) Up-to-date charts containing high resolution bathymetric data; and
(2) The DIS Tool Display shall be located close to the primary conning position, be visible and legible; and equipped with a pilot plug, if using a portable DIS.
(i) Verification document of the DIS must be kept on board the vessel at all times and made available for inspection.
(ii) A company letter attesting to officer training on use of the DIS must be kept on board and made available for inspection.
(iii) In every navigation season, a vessel intending to use the DIS must notify the Manager of the Corporation in writing at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of its initial transit in the System with the DIS.
(iv) If for any reason the DIS or AIS becomes inoperable, malfunctions or is not used while the vessel is transiting at a draft greater than the maximum permissible draft prescribed under § 401.29(b) in effect at the time, the vessel must notify the Manager or the Corporation immediately.
(b) Crew members being put ashore on landing booms and handling mooring lines on tie-up walls shall wear approved personal flotation devices.
(a) Mooring lines shall only be placed on mooring posts as directed by the officer in charge of the mooring operation.
(b) No winch from which a mooring line runs shall be operated until the officer in charge of a mooring operation has signaled that the line has been placed on a mooring post.
(c) Once the mooring lines are on the mooring posts, lines shall be kept slack until the “all clear” signal is given by the lock personnel. When casting off signal is received, mooring lines shall be kept slack until the “all clear” signal is given by the lock personnel.
(d) Vessels being moored by “Hands Free Mooring” system (HFM) shall have a minimum of 2 well rested crew members on deck during the lockage.
When the speed of a vessel entering a lock chamber has to be checked, the master shall take all necessary precautions to stop the vessel in order to avoid contact with lock structures. At no time shall the vessel deploy its anchors to stop the vessel when entering a lock chamber.
(a) Mooring lines shall only be cast off as directed by the officer in charge of a mooring operation.
(b) No vessel shall proceed out of a lock until the exit gates, ship arresters and the bridge, if any, are in a fully open position.
(c) When “Hands Free Mooring system (HFM) is used, no vessel shall use its engine(s) until the lock operator provides the “all clear” instruction.
(a) Advance notice of arrival. All foreign flagged vessels of 300 GRT or above intending to transit the Seaway shall submit a completed electronic Notice of Arrival (NOA) prior to entering at call in point 2 (CIP2) as follows:
(c) Vessels carrying “Certain Dangerous Cargo (CDC) as defined in the Transport Canada “Marine Transportation Security Regulations” (MTSR's) and the United States Coast Guard regulations under the Marine Transportation Security Act shall report the “Certain Dangerous Cargo” to the nearest Seaway station prior to a Seaway transit.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD), on October 22, 2013, and supplemented on July 25, 2014, to demonstrate that the State meets the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO
Written comments must be received on or before March 7, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0152, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached via electronic mail at
On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA promulgated a revised primary SO
This action is proposing to approve portions of Georgia's infrastructure SIP submissions
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains.
More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for “infrastructure” SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these requirements include basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements are summarized below and in EPA's September 13, 2013, memorandum entitled “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).”
• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures
• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System
• 110(a)(2)(C): Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources
• 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate Pollution Transport
• 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and International Air Pollution
• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies
• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting
• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers
• 110(a)(2)(H): SIP Revisions
• 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas
• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public Notification, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Visibility Protection
• 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling Data
• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees
• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and Participation by Affected Local Entities
EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from Georgia that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2010 1-hour SO
EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, “regional haze SIP” submissions required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.
The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) requires that “each” SIP submission must meet the list of requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.
Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit “a plan” to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined action.
Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.
EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D have to meet the “applicable requirements” of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and is thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that particular NAAQS.
Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.
As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, which pertain to state
As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and new source review (NSR) pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM
For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the state's implementation plan meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes,
With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (“SSM”); (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (“NSR Reform”). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission even if it is aware of such existing provisions.
EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the purposes of “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of a new or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a “SIP call” whenever the Agency determines that a state's implementation plan is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.
The Georgia 2010 1-hour SO
1. 110(a)(2)(A):
EPA has made the preliminary determination that the provisions contained in these State rules are adequate to protect the 2010 1-hour SO
In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state provisions with regard to excess emissions during start up, shut down, and malfunction (SSM) operations at a facility. EPA believes that a number of states have SSM provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance, “State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown” (September 20, 1999), and the Agency is addressing such state regulations in a separate action.
Additionally, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state rules with regard to director's discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987)), and the Agency plans to take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
2. 110(a)(2)(B)
3. 110(a)(2)(C)
EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP is adequate for program enforcement of control measures, PSD permitting for major sources, and regulation of new and modified minor sources related to the 2010 1-hour SO
4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II)
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2: EPA is not proposing any action in this rulemaking related to the interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) because Georgia's 2010 1-hour SO
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3: With regard to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the PSD element, referred to as prong 3, this requirement may be met by a state's confirmation in an infrastructure SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications in the state are subject to: a PSD program meeting all the current structural requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, or (if the state contains a nonattainment area that has the potential to impact PSD in another state) to a NNSR program. As discussed in more detail above under section 110(a)(2)(C), Georgia's SIP contains provisions for the State's PSD program that reflects the relevant SIP revisions pertaining to the required structural PSD requirements to satisfy the requirement of prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Georgia addresses prong 3 through rules 391-3-1-.02.—“Provisions. Amended,” and 391-3-1-.03.—“Permits. Amended,” which include the PSD and NNSR requirements, respectively. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP is adequate for interstate transport for PSD permitting of major sources and major modifications related to the 2010 1-hour SO
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4: EPA is not proposing any action in this rulemaking related to the interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4) and will consider these requirements in relation to Georgia's 2010 1-hour SO
5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii):
Additionally, Georgia does not have any pending obligation under section 115 and 126 of the CAA. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices are adequate for ensuring compliance with the applicable requirements relating to interstate and international pollution abatement for the 2010 1-hour SO
6. 110(a)(2)(E)
In support of EPA's proposal to approve sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), GAEPD's infrastructure SIP demonstrates that it is responsible for promulgating rules and regulations for the NAAQS, emissions standards and general policies, a system of permits, fee schedules for the review of plans, and other planning needs. In its SIP submittal, Georgia describes its authority for Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) as the CAA section l05 grant process, the
Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that the state comply with section 128 of the CAA. Section 128 requires that the SIP provide: (1) the majority of members of the state board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permitting or enforcement orders under the CAA; and (2) any potential conflicts of interest by such board or body, or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed. With respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) pertaining the state board requirements of CAA section 128, Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission cites Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-5)
EPA has made the preliminary determination that the State has adequately addressed the requirements of section 128(a), and accordingly has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve GAEPD's infrastructure SIP submissions as meeting the requirements of sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii) and (iii).
7. 110(a)(2)(F)
Additionally, Georgia is required to submit emissions data to EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is EPA's central repository for air emissions data. EPA published the AERR on December 5, 2008, which modified the requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR 76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain larger sources annually through EPA's online Emissions Inventory System. States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and their associated precursors—NO
Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(3), “Sampling,”
8. 110(a)(2)(G)
Rule 391-3-1-.04 “Air Pollution Episodes” provides that the Director of GAEPD “will proclaim that an Air Pollution Alert, Air Pollution Warning, or Air Pollution Emergency exists when the meteorological conditions are such that an air stagnation condition is in existence and/or the accumulation of air contaminants in any place is attaining or has attained levels which could, if such levels are sustained or exceeded, lead to a substantial threat to the health of persons in the specific area affected.” Collectively the cited provisions provide that GAEPD demonstrates authority comparable with section 303 of the CAA and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority in the State. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP, and State laws are adequate for emergency powers related to the 2010 1-hour SO
9. 110(a)(2)(H)
The Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-6(b)(12) and 12-9-6(b)(13)) provide Georgia the authority to conduct certain actions in support of this infrastructure element. Section 12-9-6(b)(l2) of the Georgia Air Quality Act requires GAEPD to submit SIP revisions whenever revised air quality standards are promulgated by EPA. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia adequately demonstrates a commitment to provide future SIP revisions related to the 2010 1-hour SO
10. 110(a)(2)(J)
Additionally, Georgia adopted state-wide consultation procedures for the implementation of transportation conformity which includes the development of mobile inventories for SIP development.
11. 110(a)(2)(K)
Additionally, Georgia supports a regional effort to coordinate the development of emissions inventories and conduct regional modeling for several NAAQS, including the 2010 1-hour SO
12. 110(a)(2)(L)
Georgia's PSD and NNSR permitting programs are funded with title V fees. The Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.03(9) “Permit Fees.” incorporates the EPA-approved title V fee program and fees for synthetic minor sources. Georgia's authority to mandate funding for processing PSD and NNSR permits is found in Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 12-9-10). The State notes that these title V operating program fees cover the reasonable cost of implementation and enforcement of PSD and NNSR permits after they have been issued. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices adequately provide for permitting fees related to the
13. 110(a)(2)(M)
With the exception of interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states and visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's October 22, 2013, SIP submission as supplemented on July 25, 2014, for the 2010 1-hour SO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), this proposed rule would establish filing and recordkeeping procedures relating to the importation of certain fish and fish products, in order to implement the MSA's prohibition on the import and trade, in interstate or foreign commerce, of fish taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of any foreign law or regulation. The information to be filed is proposed to be collected at the time of entry, and makes use of an electronic single window consistent with the Safety and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2006 and other applicable statutes. Specifically, NMFS proposes to integrate collection of catch and landing documentation for certain fish and fish products within the government-wide International Trade Data System (ITDS) and require electronic information collection through the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) maintained by the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Under these procedures, NMFS would require an annually renewable International Fisheries Trade Permit (IFTP) and specific data for certain fish and fish products to be filed and retained as a condition of import to enable the United States to exclude the entry into commerce of products of illegal fishing activities. The information to be collected and retained will help authorities verify that the fish or fish products were lawfully acquired by providing information that traces
Written comments must be received by April 5, 2016. Public webinars will take place from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. eastern standard time on February 18 and 24, 2016. An in-person public listening session will be held in Boston, Massachusetts from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. eastern standard time on March 7, 2016.
Written comments on this action, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0122, may be submitted by either of the following methods:
•
•
All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to
NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Enter N/A in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe portable document file (PDF) formats only.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to the NOAA Fisheries Office for International Affairs and Seafood Inspection and by email to
Information on how to participate in the February 18 and 24, 2016 public webinars will be posted online at
The March 7, 2016 public listening session is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mark Wildman, at (301) 427-8350, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Mark Wildman, Office for International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, NOAA Fisheries (phone (301) 427-8350, or email
On June 17, 2014, the White House released a
The Task Force was directed to report to the President “recommendations for the implementation of a comprehensive framework of integrated programs to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud that emphasizes areas of greatest need.” Those recommendations were provided to the President through the National Ocean Council, and NMFS requested comments from the public on how to effectively implement the recommendations of the Task Force (79 FR 75536, December 18, 2014). Oversight for implementing the recommendations of the Task Force has been charged to the National Ocean Council Standing Committee on IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud (NOC Committee).
Recommendation 14 concerns the development of a risk-based traceability program (including defining operational standards and the types of information to be collected) as a means to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. Recommendation 15 calls for the implementation of the first phase of that risk-based traceability program that tracks fish and fish products identified as being at risk of IUU fishing or seafood fraud from point of harvest to point of entry into U.S. commerce. The first step taken to address Recommendations 14 and 15 was the identification of those species likely to be at risk of IUU fishing or seafood fraud.
As indicated in the Task Force's recommendations to the President, it is the goal of the U.S. government “to eventually expand the program to all seafood at first point of sale or import.” The process for expansion will account for, among other factors, consideration of authorities needed for more robust implementation, stakeholder input, and the cost-effectiveness of program expansion. By December 2016, the NOC Committee will issue a report that includes an evaluation of the program as set out in a final rule and implemented to date, as well as recommendations of how and under what timeframe it would be expanded.
The SAFE Port Act (Pub. L. 109-347) requires all Federal agencies with a role
This proposed rule would also require the importer of record to obtain a permit to import a designated at-risk species (
Additional species and products may be subsequently identified for inclusion in the Seafood Traceability Program as part of the continuing process to implement Recommendations 14 and 15. Use of ITDS and the ACE portal is envisioned as the mechanism for implementing additional data collection requirements for imports of all fish species, if a decision is made to expand the Seafood Traceability Program, through future rulemaking, to include all fish species.
This proposed rule addresses only the collection of information on imported fish and fish products at the point of entry into U.S. commerce. For imported fish and fish products, entry into commerce is the landing on, bringing into, or introduction into, or attempted landing on, bringing into, or introduction into, any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, whether or not such landing, bringing, or introduction constitutes an importation within the meaning of the customs laws of the United States.
For U.S. domestic wild capture fisheries, entry into U.S. commerce occurs at the first point of landing or sale or transfer to a dealer or processor in the United States. In the case of harvesting vessels that process at-sea, transfer their catch to a processor at-sea, transfer their catch to a carrier or tender vessel at-sea, or transship their catch in port, entry into commerce is the offloading of the transferred and/or processed product for transshipment in an established U.S. port or roadstead. For U.S. domestic aquaculture products, entry into U.S. commerce is the first sale to a processing facility or directly to a consumer market.
For the designated at-risk species, equivalent information is already being collected at the point of entry into commerce for the products of U.S. domestic fisheries pursuant to various Federal and/or State fishery management and reporting programs. For this reason, this proposed rule does not duplicate data reporting and record retention requirements already in place for products of U.S. domestic fisheries, and instead focuses on accessing the data necessary to establish traceability from point of harvest to entry into U.S. commerce for imported fish and fish products. Together, the requirements already in place for products of U.S. domestic fisheries and the requirements proposed in this rule for imported fish and fish products provide a framework for the designated at-risk species to trace seafood, whether domestic or imported, back to the point of harvest or capture to verify that seafood entering U.S. commerce is both legally caught and not fraudulently represented.
With respect to aquaculture, U.S. domestic aquaculture is largely regulated at the state level. NOAA understands that U.S. states generally do not collect with respect to products of U.S. aquaculture operations the data this rule proposes to collect on imports. This is a concern as the IUU Task Force Action Plan calls for a traceability program that applies without regard to whether seafood is domestic or imported to ensure that seafood entering U.S. commerce is not the product of IUU fishing or fraud. NMFS is aware of gaps in the collection of traceability information for domestic aquaculture-raised shrimp and abalone, and is working with its federal and state partners to identify and implement measures to address those gaps. While it remains NMFS' full intention to include shrimp and abalone in the final rule, implementation of measures to address those gaps may affect the timing of implementation of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for imports of shrimp and abalone. In particular, if gaps remain unaddressed by the time of publication of a final rule, NMFS intends to delay implementation of the rule for shrimp and abalone until such time as, working with its state and federal partners, it is able to determine that the gaps have been addressed and publishes a notice in the
A working group including representatives from NMFS and other Federal agency partners solicited comment on principles to be applied in the identification of fish species likely to be most at risk of IUU fishing or seafood fraud (80 FR 24246, April 30, 2015). Taking into consideration public comment received, the working group evaluated the strength and utility of various indicators of IUU fishing or seafood fraud as well as their measurability and the robustness of data available to assess them. The working group endeavored to minimize overlap of principles to ensure that alignment with multiple principles did not overstate associated risk, and also to
The working group identified the following draft principles: Enforcement capability, existence of a catch documentation scheme, complexity of the supply chain, known species substitution, history of mislabeling (other than misidentification of species), and history of fisheries violations. Applying those principles to a base list of species, thirteen fish species/species groups were identified as likely to be most at risk of IUU fishing or seafood fraud. NMFS solicited public comment on the draft principles and draft list of at-risk species (80 FR 45955, August 3, 2015). After taking into consideration public comment, NMFS issued final principles and applied those principles to determine a list of at-risk species (80 FR 66867, October 30, 2015). Public comments received in response to each of the above notices can be viewed through the docket created on the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:
Pursuant to the process described above, NMFS issued a list of at-risk species and species groups that includes: Abalone; Atlantic Cod; Pacific Cod; Blue Crab; Red King Crab; Dolphinfish (Mahi Mahi); Grouper; Red Snapper; Sea Cucumber; Shrimp; Sharks; Swordfish; and Albacore, Bigeye, Skipjack, and Yellowfin Tuna. Although bluefin tuna species were determined to be at a lower risk of IUU fishing and seafood fraud than other tuna species and were not included on the list of at-risk species, the reporting and recordkeeping requirements proposed in this rule apply to HTS codes for fish and fish products of all tuna species including bluefin tuna. NMFS notes that bluefin tuna was historically a target of IUU fishing, and in response, two regional fisheries organizations implemented a catch documentation scheme which together include two of the three species world-wide. While NMFS continues to view the bluefin tuna to be at considerably lower risk of IUU fishing and seafood fraud than other tuna species and has made no modification to the list of at-risk species published on October 30, it proposes to cover bluefin tuna in this proposed rule (and has therefore included the HTS codes for bluefin tuna in the above list) in order to establish consistent treatment of tuna species, and avoid possible concerns that one species of tuna may be treated less favorably than others.
Although NOAA has, as discussed, previously sought comment on the list of species to which this rule will apply (80 FR 45955, August 3, 2015), NOAA recognizes that the public may further comment on the list of species and species groups, including whether any species should be added or deleted. It would be helpful if such comments include information on the factors established in Recommendations 14 and 15 of the IUU Task Force Action Plan. Because NOAA responded on October 30, 2015 (80 FR 66867) to comments received on the proposed list that was published on August 3, 2015 (80 FR 45955), NOAA requests that comments not be submitted on this proposal that are duplicative of those submitted on the list of species and contain no new information.
Under this proposed rule, importers would therefore be subject to the permitting, reporting and recording keeping requirements, which are described below, with respect to imports of the species and species groups as proposed, subject to revision at the time of issuance of the final rule. Entries of the fish and fish product of species covered by this rule filed under the following HTS codes would be designated in ACE as requiring the additional data in order to obtain release of the inbound shipment:
For the above listed HTS codes that may be used to make entry for designated at-risk species and for species which are not so designated, the scientific name of the species in the shipment, or a disclaimer, will be required to discern whether the shipment offered for entry is subject to additional data collection under the proposed traceability program. This proposed rule does not cover highly processed fish products (fish oil, slurry, sauces, sticks, balls, cakes, puddings, and other similar highly processed fish products) for which the species of fish comprising the product or the harvesting event(s) or aquaculture operation(s) of the shipment of the product cannot be feasibly identified and therefore HTS codes for such fish and fish products have not been included in the list above. However other program requirements (
Regulatory requirements for reporting and recordkeeping already exist for certain products subject to this rule. In particular, tuna products would be subject to this proposed rule and are now subject to the Tuna Tracking and Verification Program (TTVP) (
The working group considered the minimum types of information that should be reported in order to determine that imports of at-risk species are not products of illegal fishing or are fraudulently represented. The area of harvest or the location of the aquaculture facility, and the time at which the harvest took place, represents the initial “link” in the supply chain. At-risk species entering U.S. commerce will be traced to their harvest and its authorization. Information on each point of transshipment and processing throughout the fish or fish product's chain of custody culminating at the point of entry into U.S. commerce can also be used to trace product back to point of harvest.
The data to be reported for at-risk species would be in addition to the information required by CBP as part of normal entry processing via the ACE portal. To avoid duplication, the interagency working group considered data that are already collected by CBP on the entry/entry summary, and data that are, or will be, collected via ACE by NMFS and other ITDS partner government agencies (
NMFS issued a notice (80 FR 37601, July 1, 2015) to request public input on the minimum types of information necessary for an effective seafood traceability program to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud, as well as the operational standards related to collecting, verifying and securing that data. A number of respondents from the trade community expressed concern that any additional documentation and the electronic collection of data would create a burden to the industry, and could compromise the confidential relationships between buyers and suppliers. While changes will need to be made that may pose a challenge in the near term for some industry members, it is anticipated that the long-term benefits of electronic data collection will outweigh these challenges. To address concerns about data confidentiality, data security will be given the highest priority. Information collected via ACE and maintained in CBP systems is highly sensitive commercial, financial and proprietary information, generally exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)) and prohibited from disclosure by the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905). NMFS further notes that information required to be submitted to the agency under the MSA is subject to MSA confidentiality of information requirements at 16 U.S.C. 1881a(b).
Several comments expressed the desire for all fish species to be included in the initial phase of the traceability program, not just the subset of identified at-risk species. Others commented that monitoring and control should not stop at the point of entry into U.S. commerce, but carry all the way through to the final retail consumer, where many feel that most fraud occurs, especially in terms of mislabeling. Although this proposed rule is the initial phase, and is designed in such a way that it can be expanded to eventually include all species, as warranted by risk analysis, it is not designed to expand traceability from the point of entry into commerce to the final consumer. As noted earlier, the MSA makes it unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any fish taken, possessed,
The comments reflected almost universal support for the use of scientific names for accurate species identification, with the addition of FDA-approved market names on consumer labeling for user-friendliness. Many of the comments suggested that the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Fishing Area alone is not sufficient to identify a precise location of harvest, and that fishing location should be more closely defined by including the country of origin (for product harvested within another country's waters), regional designation, or even GPS coordinates.
The domestic fishing community also expressed the desire for importers to be held to the same documentation standards that apply to U.S. fisheries because they feel that they “already provide a staggering amount of information and demonstrate a high degree of traceability.” The NOC Committee agrees that data regarding fish and fish products from both domestic and foreign sources must be required to enable officials to determine lawful harvest and, also, reduce the incidence of fraud. Much of the data needed to combat IUU fishing is already being collected in many foreign fisheries, and using the single-window ITDS system at the point of entry would help streamline and unify the data reporting and verification process, and provide the needed inter-operability of information exchange across the supply chain.
After consideration of comments as outlined above, NMFS proposes that, at the point of entry for species covered by this rule, importers of record would be required to report the following information for each entry in addition to other information that CBP and other agencies, including NMFS, currently require:
• Information on the entity(ies) harvesting or producing the fish (as applicable): Name and flag state of harvesting vessel(s) and evidence of authorization; Unique vessel identifier(s) (if available); Type(s) of fishing gear; Name(s) of farm or aquaculture facility.
• Information on the fish that was harvested and processed, including: Species of fish (scientific name, acceptable market name, and ASFIS number); Product description(s); Name(s) of product; Quantity and/or weight of the product(s).
• Information on where and when the fish were harvested and landed: Area(s) of wild-capture or aquaculture harvest; Harvest date(s); Location(s) of aquaculture facility; Point of first landing; Date of first landing; Name of entity(ies) (processor, dealer, vessel) to which fish was landed. Such information may be contained, for example, in catch certificates, landing reports, and port inspection reports. Entries may comprise products from more than one harvest event and each event relevant to entry must be reported.
• The NMFS IFTP number issued to the importer of record for the entry.
Additional information on each point in the chain of custody regarding the shipment of the fish or fish product to point of entry into U.S. commerce would be established as a recordkeeping requirement on the part of the importer of record to ensure that information is readily available to NMFS to allow it to trace the fish or fish product from the point of entry into U.S. commerce back to the point of harvest to verify the information that is reported upon entry. Such information would include records regarding each custodian of the fish and fish product, including, as applicable, transshippers, processors, storage facilities, and distributors. The information contained in the records must be provided to NMFS upon request and be sufficient for NMFS to conduct a trace back to verify the veracity of the information that is reported on entry. NMFS expects that typical supply chain records that are kept in the normal course of businesses, including declarations by harvesting/carrier vessels, bills of lading and forms voluntarily used or required under foreign government or international monitoring programs which include such information as the identity of the custodian, the type of processing, and the weight of the product, would provide sufficient information for NMFS to conduct a trace back. In addition to relying on such records, the trade may choose to use model forms that NMFS has developed to track and document chain of custody information through the supply chain. NMFS seeks comments on proposed model forms it has developed for this purpose which are available in the docket for this rulemaking at
Due to technological limitations of automated data processing for imaged documents and requirements associated with the phase-in of ITDS, this proposed rule requires that chain of custody information be retained by the importer of record and made available to NMFS upon request. However, NMFS recognizes the conservation value of requiring reporting of key chain of custody data elements for the purpose of real-time verification and compliance risk assessment if those data can be accessed and analyzed using automated processes. While constraints on the expansion of information collected through message sets prior to full operationalization of ITDS by December 31, 2016 preclude the inclusion in this proposed rule of a reporting requirement for chain of custody information in that manner, NMFS will identify (including based on its experience with audits conducted pursuant to this rule) key chain of custody data elements that pose conservation benefits for real-time reporting by one year from full implementation of the final rule, and implement through subsequent rulemaking the reporting of key chain of custody data via message set into the ITDS system.
As explained above, NMFS proposes that the importer of record, or entry filer acting on their behalf, report the data required under the proposed program via the ACE portal as part of the CBP entry/entry summary process. To this end, importers of record who enter the designated at-risk species would be required to supply the data required to be reported under this proposed rule electronically through the ACE Partner Government Agency Message Set for NMFS (NMFS Message Set) and/or the DIS. The format for the NMFS Message Set would be designated for each of the affected commodities (by HTS code) and specified in the following documents that would be jointly developed by NMFS and CBP and made available to importers and other entry filers by CBP (
In developing software for assembling and transferring the additional data to ACE, importers may wish to consider interoperability with existing traceability systems that are prevalent in the private sector supply chain or which may exist for certain commodities subject to catch/trade documentation schemes under the auspices of a regional fishery management organization (RFMO). While NMFS does not endorse any particular private sector traceability system, use of such systems may facilitate the collection of the
Where RFMO catch/documentation schemes apply to the affected at-risk species, including those that have been implemented by NMFS through regulation (
The ITDS proposed rule would establish the IFTP to consolidate existing permits under the highly migratory species international trade program (HMS ITP) and Antarctic marine living resources (AMLR) program, and would require a permit for the TTVP. (80 FR 81251, December 29, 2015). (
To obtain the IFTP, U.S. importers of record for designated at-risk species covered by this rule and seafood products derived from such species would electronically submit their application and fee for the IFTP via the National Permitting System Web site designated by NMFS. The fee charged for the IFTP would be calculated, at least annually, in accordance with procedures set forth in Chapter 9 of the NOAA Finance Handbook for determining the administrative costs for special products and services (
This proposed rule would require that an IFTP holder (
NMFS believes the costs of this rule will be relatively minor. Nonetheless, NMFS recognizes that the public may comment on this aspect of the proposed rule and possibly suggest alternative approaches. Section 2.6 of the Draft Regulatory Impact Review and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis discusses several alternatives that were considered and ultimately rejected by NMFS. Any comments on these alternatives or any other modifications to the proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements should explain how they maintain the rule's effectiveness at combating IUU fishing and seafood fraud.
This proposed rule recognizes that the importer of record may be different from the entity that actually completes CBP entry filings (
To implement this proposed regulation, business rules would be programmed into ACE to automatically validate that the importer of record has satisfied all of the NMFS Message Set and document image requirements as applicable to HTS codes subject to multiple programs (
To select entries for verification, NMFS would work with CBP to develop a specific program within ITDS to
A verification program as described above will facilitate a determination of whether imported seafood has been lawfully acquired and not misrepresented and deter the infiltration of illegally harvested and misrepresented seafood into the supply chain. In addition to market access deterrence, there may be price effects in that illegal or would be fraudulent seafood must be diverted to lower value markets. Taken together, market access and price effects would reduce the incentives for illegal fishing operations and for seafood fraud. Conversely, authorized fisheries stand to benefit from import monitoring programs that aim to identify and exclude products of IUU fishing and seafood fraud, both through enhanced market share and potentially higher prices.
NMFS is considering how voluntary third party seafood certification programs could simplify entry filing for designated at-risk species or could be used to meet reporting requirements under this proposed rule. NMFS requests comment on how interoperability of third party data systems could be applied to meet the data reporting requirements on a pre-arrival basis or at the point of entry. Such interoperable systems would have to provide the information necessary for NMFS to trace product to the harvest event and therefore be sufficient to identify product that is the result of IUU fishing or is misrepresented.
Additionally, NMFS is considering how a Trusted Trader program might be used to streamline entry processing for designated at-risk species. The Trusted Trader Program is intended to streamline entry processing consistent with ensuring that all traders in the supply chain comply with applicable U.S. regulations. Participants in the Trusted Trader Program would collect or have access to the same data as non-participants, but may not need to provide it prior to entry. NMFS requests comment regarding the potential design and use of a Trusted Trader Program in connection with the requirements proposed in this rule, in particular how it could be used to streamline entry while allowing the United States to determine that imported seafood has been lawfully acquired and not misrepresented and to deter the infiltration of illegally harvested and misrepresented seafood into the supply chain.
The European Union (EU) adopted the IUU Regulation on September 29, 2008, which included a catch certification scheme for importation and exportation of fishery products. The EU's IUU regulations do not include a traceability scheme equivalent to that as contemplated by the IUU Task Force and as proposed in this rule. However, NMFS is interested in comments on how some of the elements inherent in the EU's IUU regulations may be adapted to this rule as a means of facilitating compliance and reducing burden for exporters, either through the design of the traceability process itself or as part of a trusted trader program.
NMFS requests specific comment on the implementation date for the data reporting and recordkeeping requirements for at-risk species under this proposed rule. While some firms may have adequate information systems already in place, other firms may need lead time to develop and implement mechanisms for transmitting the required information along the supply chain so that the data are available for entry filers to submit via ACE. NMFS anticipates that this proposed rule would become effective in September 2016, consistent with timeframes described in the IUU and Seafood Fraud Task Force Action Plan, but that the date by which importers are required to comply with the requirements in the rule will be sometime after that. NMFS seeks comment on an appropriate implementation date or dates, taking into account any time firms may require to adapt to their practices to comply with the requirements of this rule as well as logistical considerations such as compliance with anticipated revisions to ITDS that will allow chain of custody information to be submitted electronically. As an initial estimate, NMFS anticipates that firms may need between 90 days and 12 months to adapt their practices to comply with the requirements of this rule and proposes an implementation date of somewhere between 90 days and 12 months following publication of the final rule.
In addition to seeking comments on the implementation timeframe for this first phase of the traceability program, feedback is also sought on the lead time needed for seafood trade participants to implement potential expansion of this rule, either by inclusion of additional species and/or additional data elements. NMFS proposes to implement changes to reporting or recordkeeping requirements for species and data elements through notice and comment rulemaking procedures. Future proposed rules would specify the changes to reporting or recordkeeping requirements and would direct potentially affected parties to the pertinent CBP documents (Appendix PGA, PGA Message Set, Implementation Guide for NMFS) as described in the Customs and Trade Automated Interface Requirements (CATAIR) available at:
Subject to the availability of resources, NMFS intends to provide assistance to exporting nations to support compliance with the requirements of this proposed rule, including by providing assistance to build capacity to: (1) Undertake effective fisheries management; (2) strengthen fisheries governance structures and enforcement bodies to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud; and (3) establish, maintain, or support systems to enable export shipments of fish and fish products to be traced back to point of harvest.
The proposed requirements for additional data collection at entry into U.S. commerce for imported at-risk species could intersect with data collection requirements applicable to imports of those same species under
NMFS has previously issued regulations to implement programs for fishery products subject to RFMO documentation requirements and/or catch documentation under domestic laws. These regulations pertain to trade monitoring under three main programs: The HMS ITP, which regulates trade in specified commodities of tuna, swordfish, billfish, and shark fins under the MSA and requirements adopted by several tuna RFMOs to which the United States is a contracting party; the AMLR program, which regulates trade in Antarctic and Patagonian toothfish and other fishery products managed under the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR); and TTVP, which regulates trade of purse seine harvested in frozen and/or processed tuna products under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Monitoring authority, conducted under the TTVP, is also provided for tuna products by the DPCIA, which specifies the conditions under which tuna products are eligible to be labeled as dolphin-safe.
Many of these monitoring programs require parties who import into or export, and/or re-export from the U.S. regulated species to: Obtain a permit from NMFS, obtain documentation on the flag-nation authorization for the harvest from the foreign exporter, and submit this information to NMFS. Depending on the commodity, specific information may also be required, for example: The flag nation of the harvesting vessel, the ocean area of catch, the fishing gear used, the name of the harvesting vessel and details and authorizations related to harvest, landing, transshipment and export/re-export.
In addition to these three programs, NMFS may implement or recommend trade measures for certain commodities under several other authorities. The High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act (HSDFMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1826d-k) sets forth a process for identification and certification of nations for IUU fishing, bycatch of protected living marine resources, and unsustainable shark fishing. Certain fish and fish products from identified nations that do not receive positive certifications could be subject to denial of port privileges and/or import prohibitions under the authority provided in the High Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act (HSDFEA) (16 U.S.C. 1826a-c). There are also identification and/or certification procedures in other statutes, including the Pelly Amendment to the Fishermen's Protective Act (22 U.S.C. 1978) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA) (16 U.S.C. 971
Multilateral efforts to combat IUU fishing may also result in requirements to take trade action. The United States is a member or contracting party to several RFMOs that have established procedures to identify nations and/or vessels whose fishing activities undermine the effectiveness of the conservation and management measures adopted by the organization. Fishery products exported by such nations or harvested by such vessels may be subject to import prohibitions. Relevant RFMO statutes include the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 971
For existing programs involving collection and reporting of trade information that overlap with the at-risk species proposed for data collection in this current rulemaking, NMFS has examined the data required under those existing programs and has adjusted the NMFS Message Set specified in the ABI Implementation Guide to ensure that all regulatory requirements are met while avoiding duplication. Likewise, NMFS has avoided duplication between the at-risk species data reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in this proposed rule and any documentation requirements affecting designated at-risk species that have been implemented pursuant to other existing programs. Should future trade monitoring requirements be applied for designated at-risk species under any statutory authority, NMFS will consider how to avoid duplication of data collection accordingly. However, entry filers should carefully examine the data reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in this proposed rule and other applicable rules, as further explained in the ABI Implementation Guide, for the commodities that comprise the shipment to ensure that all regulatory requirements are met for all trade-related programs that are applicable. The ABI Implementation Guide will be updated by NMFS and CBP to provide the trade with a single comprehensive resource addressing all applicable program requirements for imports of fish and fish products subject to data reporting and recordkeeping requirements under NMFS statutory authority. NMFS would welcome public comment as to whether there are any additional duplicative data reporting or recordkeeping requirements which have not been identified.
This proposed rule is published under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801
This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 because it may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in E.O. 12866. NMFS has prepared a regulatory impact review of this action, which is available from NMFS (see
The regulatory action being considered, and its legal basis, is described in the preamble of this proposed rule. This proposed rule would require a permit (IFTP) for importers of at-risk species. Additionally, information pertaining to the harvest and landing of the product prior to U.S. import would be required at the point of entry into U.S. commerce, and certain records must be retained. With regard to the possible economic effects of this action, NMFS
This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 because it may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in E.O. 12866. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule will have on small entities and includes a description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action. The purpose of the RFA is to relieve small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental entities of burdensome regulations and recordkeeping requirements. Major goals of the RFA are: (1) To increase agency awareness and understanding of the impact of their regulations on small business, (2) to require agencies to communicate and explain their findings to the public, and (3) to encourage agencies to use flexibility and to provide regulatory relief to small entities. The RFA emphasizes predicting impacts on small entities as a group distinct from other entities and the consideration of alternatives that may minimize the impacts while still achieving the stated objective of the action. Below is a summary of the IRFA for the proposed rule which was prepared in conjunction with a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR). The IRFA/RIR is available from NMFS (see
The primary objective of this proposed rule is to collect or have access to additional data on imported fish and fish products to determine that it has been lawfully acquired and is not fraudulent and to deter illegally caught or misrepresented seafood from entering into U.S. commerce. These data reporting and recordkeeping requirements affect
If this rule is finalized, NMFS estimates there will be approximately 2,000 new applicants for the IFTP, with an estimated industry-wide increase in annual costs to importers of $60,000 in permit fees. Data sets to be submitted electronically to determine product admissibility are, to some extent, either already collected by the trade in the course of supply chain management, already required to be collected and submitted under existing trade monitoring programs (
The proposed rule would apply to U.S. entities that import fish and fish products derived from the designated at-risk species. This proposed rule would be implemented so as to avoid duplication or conflict with any other Federal rules. To the extent that the proposed requirements overlap with other reporting requirements applicable to the designated at-risk species, this will be been taken into account to avoid collecting data more than once or by means other than the single window (ACE portal). As stated above, this rule is intended to allow NMFS to determine that imported seafood has been lawfully acquired and is not fraudulently represented and to deter illegally caught or misrepresented seafood from entering into U.S. commerce. Given the large volume of fish and fish product imports to the U.S. market, the number of exporting countries, and the fact that traceability systems are being increasingly used within the seafood industry, it is not expected that this rule would significantly affect the overall volume of trade or alter trade flows in the U.S. market for fish and fish products that are legally harvested and accurately represented.
NMFS considered several alternatives in this rulemaking: The requirements described in the proposed rule, a no-action alternative and various combinations of data reporting and recordkeeping for the supply chain information applicable to the at-risk species. NMFS prefers the proposed rule approach, because it would implement the initial phase of a traceability program as envisioned by Recommendations 14 and 15 of the Task Force. In addition, it is consistent with the existing requirement that all applicable U.S. government agencies are required to implement ITDS under the authority of the SAFE Port Act and Executive Order 13659, Streamlining the Export/Import Process (79 FR 10657, February 28, 2014). Also, the proposed traceability program takes into account the burden of data collection from the trade and the government requirements for admissibility determinations.
Under NOAA Administrative Order (NAO 216-6), the promulgation of regulations that are procedural and administrative in nature are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Assessment. These proposed regulations to implement a seafood traceability program are procedural and administrative in nature in that they would impose reporting and recordkeeping requirements for ongoing authorized catch and trade activities. Fishing activity and trade in seafood products are not further restricted relative to any existing laws or regulations, either foreign or domestic. Given the procedural and administrative nature of this rulemaking, an Environmental Assessment was not prepared.
This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. The information collection burden for the requirements proposed under this rule
Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed data reporting is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; 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, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The public may also wish to comment on how alternative compliance schedules for these reporting and record keeping requirements may affect burden. Draft model forms are also available on both
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Exports, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Illegal, unreported or unregulated fishing, Foreign relations, Imports, International trade permits, Treaties.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 300, subpart R, as proposed to be added December 29, 2015, (80 FR 81251), is proposed to be further amended and 50 CFR part 600 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 951
A person entering for consumption or withdrawal from a foreign trade zone or bonded warehouse for consumption, exporting, or re-exporting fish or fish products regulated under this subpart from any ocean area, or any area of jurisdiction for aquaculture facilities, must file all data sets, reports, and documentation required under the AMLR program, HMS ITP, TTVP and Seafood Traceability Program and under other regulations that incorporate by reference the requirements of this subpart. A paper or electronic copy of all required reports and documentation, and all supporting records upon which an entry filing or export declaration is made, must be maintained by the importer of record, and made available for inspection, at the importer of record's place of business for a period of five years from the date of the import, export or re-export.
This section establishes a Seafood Traceability Program which comprises data reporting requirements at point of entry for imported fish or fish products and recordkeeping requirements. The data reported and retained will facilitate: A determination that the fish or fish products are not misrepresented or the product of IUU fishing, including that they were not taken in violation of any foreign law or regulation, and exclusion of products from entry into U.S. commerce that are misrepresented or the product of IUU fishing. The data reporting and recordkeeping requirements under the program enable verification of the product offered for entry back to the harvesting event(s).
(a) The following species or species groups are subject to this Seafood Traceability Program: Abalone; Atlantic Cod; Pacific Cod; Blue Crab; Red King Crab; Dolphinfish (Mahi Mahi); Grouper; Red Snapper; Sea Cucumber; Shrimp Sharks; Swordfish; Tunas (Albacore, Bigeye, Skipjack, Yellowfin,
(b) In addition to data reporting requirements applicable pursuant to other authorities and requirements set out elsewhere in U.S. law and regulation (
(1) Information on the entity(ies) harvesting or producing the fish: Name and flag state of harvesting vessel(s) and evidence of authorization; Unique vessel identifier(s) (if available); Type(s) of fishing gear; Name(s) of farm or aquaculture facility.
(2) Information on the fish that was harvested and processed: Species of fish (scientific name, acceptable market name, and ASFIS number); Product description(s); Name of product(s); Quantity and/or weight of the product(s).
(3) Information on where and when the fish were harvested and landed: Area(s) of wild-capture or aquaculture location; Date(s) of harvest or trip(s); Location of aquaculture facility; Point(s) of first landing; Date(s) of first landing; Name of entity(ies) (processor, dealer, vessel) to which fish was landed. Some entries may comprise products from more than one harvest event and each event relevant to the shipment must be documented.
(4) The NMFS-issued IFTP number for the importer of record.
(c) The importer of record, either directly or through an entry filer, is required to submit the data under paragraph (b) of this section through ACE as a message set and/or image files in conformance with the procedures and formats prescribed by NMFS and Customs and Border Protection and made available at:
(d) Import shipments of fish or fish products subject to this program may be selected for inspection and/or the information or records supporting entry may be selected for audit, on a pre- or post- release basis, in order to verify the information submitted at entry.
(e) In addition to the entry recordkeeping requirements specified at 19 CFR part 16, the importer of record is required to maintain records containing information on the chain of custody of the fish or fish products sufficient to trace the fish or fish product from point of entry into U.S. commerce to the point of harvest, including information that identifies each custodian of the fish or fish product (such as any transshipper, processor, storage facility or distributor). Such records may include widely used commercial documents such as declarations by the harvesting/carrier vessels or bills of lading. Regardless of whether data is reported at entry or maintained by the importer, the importer must retain records in electronic or paper format under the recordkeeping requirements specified in § 300.323.
In addition to the prohibitions specified in § 300.4, § 300.117, § 300.189, § 600.725 and § 635.71 of this title, it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to:
(a) violate any provision of this subpart, or any permit issued under this subpart.
(b) Import species listed in § 300.324(a) without a valid IFTP or without submitting complete and accurate information as required under § 300.324(b)-(c).
5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) Possess, have custody or control of, ship, transport, offer for sale, sell, purchase, land, import, export or re-export, any fish or parts thereof taken or retained in violation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act or any other statute administered by NOAA or any regulation or permit issued there under, or import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any fish taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any foreign law or regulation, or any treaty or in contravention of binding conservation measure adopted by an international agreement or organization to which the United States is a party.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 35 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. Amendment 35 would remove black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and schoolmaster from the FMP; and clarify the Council's intent regarding the golden tilefish longline endorsement program.
Written comments must be received on or before April 5, 2016.
You may submit comments on Amendment 35 identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2015-0076” by any of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of Amendment 35 may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
Nikhil Mehta, telephone: 727-824-5305; email:
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any FMP or amendment to NMFS for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a plan or amendment, publish an announcement in the
The FMP being revised by Amendment 35 was prepared by the Council and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Amendment 35 includes actions to remove black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and schoolmaster from the FMP, and to clarify the Council's intent regarding the golden tilefish longline endorsement program.
Black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and schoolmaster are currently in the FMP, but have extremely low landings in state and Federal waters, and almost all harvest (recreational and commercial) occurs in waters off South Florida. Currently, NMFS does not manage these species in Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf); however, these species are subject to regulations in Florida state waters. As described in Amendment 35, there are currently different regulations for recreational bag limits, size limits, and catch levels for these species between the Gulf, South Atlantic, and Florida. Inconsistent regulations make enforcement difficult and may be confusing to the public. Amendment 35 would remove black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and schoolmaster from NMFS management in Federal waters of the South Atlantic to ensure that only species requiring Federal management are included in the FMP and to provide consistent regulations for these species across state and Federal jurisdictional boundaries.
Black snapper is part of the deep-water complex within the FMP. The deep-water complex currently includes black snapper, yellowedge grouper, silk snapper, misty grouper, queen snapper, sand tilefish, and blackfin snapper. If black snapper is removed from the FMP, the annual catch limit (ACL) for the deep-water complex would be reduced from 170,279 lb (77,237 kg), round weight, to 169,896 lb (77,063 kg), round weight, a difference of 382 lb (173 kg), round weight.
Dog snapper and mahogany snapper are part of the other snappers complex within the FMP. The other snappers complex currently includes cubera snapper, gray snapper, lane snapper, dog snapper, and mahogany snapper. If dog snapper and mahogany snapper are removed from the FMP, the other snappers complex ACL would be reduced from 1,517,716 lb (688,424 kg), round weight, to 1,513,883 lb (686,688 kg), round weight, a difference of 3,833 lb (1,739 kg), round weight.
Dog snapper, mahogany snapper, and black snapper are not typically targeted by commercial or recreational fishermen; therefore, bycatch associated with harvest of these species is extremely low. Schoolmaster is currently designated as an ecosystem component (EC) species. The Council is not considering retaining dog snapper, mahogany snapper, and black snapper in the FMP as Ecosystem Component (EC) species, because the objective of the amendment is to establish a consistent regulatory environment across the jurisdictional boundaries of Gulf and South Atlantic Federal waters and Florida state waters. NMFS does not manage these species in Gulf Federal waters; therefore, retaining them as EC species would not create consistent regulations across jurisdictional boundaries. Additionally, if these species are designated as EC species, the state of Florida would not be able to extend management authority for them into Federal waters.
A stock assessment has not been performed for any of these species; however, there is no indication these stocks are depleted. Therefore, removing these stocks from the FMP is not expected to result in any adverse biological effects.
The final rule for Amendment 18B to the FMP (78 FR 23858, April 23, 2013) established a longline endorsement program for the commercial golden tilefish component of the snapper-grouper fishery. An endorsement is required to fish for golden tilefish with longline gear. Amendment 18B also established a golden tilefish hook-and-line quota and modified the golden tilefish commercial trip limits. The golden tilefish longline endorsement, sector quotas, and trip limits were implemented because the commercial ACL was being harvested rapidly with longline gear, and fishermen who had historically used hook-and-line gear to target golden tilefish were not able to participate in the golden tilefish portion of the snapper-grouper fishery. Establishing gear specific commercial quotas was intended to help ensure that fishermen fishing with each gear type have a fair and equitable allocation of the commercial quota.
At the time the golden tilefish longline endorsement and gear-specific quotas were established, the Council did not intend for longline endorsement holders to fish on the 500-lb (227-kg) gutted weight hook-and-line quota, or for non-endorsement holders to fish on the longline quota. NMFS and the Council are aware that, since Amendment 18B was implemented, some longline endorsement holders are transferring their golden tilefish longline endorsement to another vessel to then fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear. Other longline endorsement holders are renewing their Federal commercial snapper-grouper vessel permit but waiting to renew their golden tilefish longline endorsement so that they are able to fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear while their longline endorsement is not valid. Neither scenario is consistent with the intent of the Council in Amendment 18B. Therefore, the Council determined that they should clarify their intent and request NMFS modify the regulations for golden tilefish endorsement holders. Currently, the regulations state, “vessels with a golden tilefish longline endorsement are not eligible to fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear
A proposed rule that would implement measures outlined in Amendment 35 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the
The Council has submitted Amendment 35 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments received by April 5, 2016, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the amendment. Comments received after that date will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.
16 U.S.C. 1801
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by March 7, 2016 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) plans to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement in connection with potential changes to the regulations regarding the importation, interstate movement, and environmental release of certain genetically engineered organisms. This notice identifies reasonable alternatives and potential issues to be evaluated in the environmental impact statement and requests public comments to further define the scope of the alternatives and environmental impacts and issues for APHIS to consider.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March 7, 2016.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Sidney W. Abel, Assistant Deputy
The Plant Protection Act (PPA) authorizes the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to protect plant health in the United States. Under that authority, APHIS currently regulates the introduction (movement into the United States or interstate, or release into the environment) of genetically engineered (GE) organisms that may present a plant pest risk through its regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests.” These regulations are intended to protect against plant pest risks to plant health by providing for the safe importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment of certain GE organisms.
APHIS' regulation of certain GE organisms to protect plant health is aligned with the Federal Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology (henceforth referred to as the Coordinated Framework), the comprehensive Federal regulatory policy for ensuring the safety of biotechnology research and products in the United States. The Coordinated Framework describes how Federal agencies will use existing Federal statutes to ensure public health and environmental safety while maintaining regulatory flexibility to avoid impeding the growth of the biotechnology industry. The Coordinated Framework sets forth a risk-based, scientifically sound basis for the oversight of activities that introduce biotechnology products into the environment and describes the roles and responsibilities for the three major Federal agencies involved in regulating biotechnology products: APHIS, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Currently, the Federal agencies are in the process of working with the Executive Office of the President to modernize a number of Coordinated Framework issues and activities; that effort is distinct from and entirely compatible with APHIS' effort to revise its biotechnology regulations at 7 CFR part 340. This notice only addresses proposed changes to the APHIS regulations. It is not intended to circumscribe, restrict, or otherwise preclude future actions taken under other Federal statutes and their respective authorities.
During the past 28 years of APHIS' regulation of certain GE organisms pursuant to the PPA and 7 CFR part 340, advances in biotechnology and new issues raised by a range of stakeholders have emerged. Over this period, APHIS has also gained considerable experience in assessing the plant pest and noxious weed risks of GE organisms. Our evaluations of any potential plant pest risks of APHIS regulated GE organisms have included assessments of weediness of the regulated article or other plants with which it can interbreed. Accordingly, APHIS is considering amending the 7 CFR part 340 regulations pertaining to introductions of certain GE organisms to address the advances in biotechnology and the new issues raised by stakeholders. This update to APHIS' biotechnology regulations will increase the efficiency and precision of our regulations. The proposed revisions would align the range of potential risks that may be considered under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340 with both the plant pest and noxious weed authorities of the PPA, to ensure a high level of environmental protection pursuant to APHIS' PPA authorities to regulate plant pest and noxious weeds, improve regulatory processes so that they are more transparent to stakeholders and the public, and provide regulatory relief to the extent possible so that unnecessary regulatory burdens are eliminated. Changes to the regulations would ensure that the Agency can continue to effectively regulate the products of biotechnology that may pose plant pest or noxious weed risks to U.S. agriculture and the environment.
In our current regulations found at 7 CFR part 340, APHIS defines the term “genetically engineered organisms” to mean organisms that have been genetically modified by recombinant DNA techniques.
The following terms are defined by the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772):
A. A protozoan.
B. A nonhuman animal.
C. A parasitic plant.
D. A bacterium.
E. A fungus.
F. A virus or viroid.
G. An infectious agent or other pathogen.
H. Any article similar to or allied with any of the articles specified in the preceding subparagraphs.
Under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
This notice describes the range of proposed reasonable alternatives that are currently under consideration for evaluation in the EIS and the issues that will be evaluated in the EIS, and requests public comment to further define the issues and scope of the EIS' alternatives. We are also requesting public comment to help us identify
The EIS will be prepared in accordance with: (1) NEPA, (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).
In considering the envisioned revisions to 7 CFR part 340, APHIS has preliminarily identified possible new definitions to be used in its proposed part 340 biotechnology regulations for consideration and analysis in the EIS:
APHIS is considering, and invites public input on, these proposed definitions. Such input should address APHIS' regulatory objectives to safeguard agricultural plants and agriculturally important natural resources from plant pest or noxious weed damage (biological, chemical, or physical) caused by a “product of biotechnology,” including its potential, or lack of potential to pose plant pest or noxious weed risks.
These proposed definitions will be used in the four proposed alternatives that are proposed to be examined in the EIS. These proposed alternatives are:
Under this alternative, APHIS would revise its current regulations to implement a two-step process that would ensure a thorough review of a product of biotechnology's potential to pose plant health risks (plant pest and/or noxious weed)—
1. Whether the recipient organism is a biocontrol organism, a microorganism that has been modified for altered plant-microbe interactions, or a plant; and
2. Whether the product of biotechnology's donor or recipient organism, or the vector used in its development meet the definition of a plant pest, is included in the list of plant pest taxa, or is unknown or unclassified.
APHIS is considering, and invites public input, on these two proposed regulatory review criteria and also invites public input on proposing other possible regulatory review criteria for APHIS' consideration.
It is important that the public be aware that the Coordinated Framework has consistently held and proceeded pursuant to the concept and position that the process of genetic modification has not been shown to be inherently dangerous. The Executive Office of the President has, through the Coordinated Framework, underscored the importance of a risk based, scientifically sound, flexible regulatory approach that balances regulatory oversight with the need to avoid impeding biotechnology research and innovation. With that in mind, APHIS is considering and would like public input on potential justifiable exceptions or exemptions that would exclude certain “products of biotechnology” from APHIS' regulatory review and oversight because they lack the realistic potential to pose documented plant pest or noxious weed risks. For example, some possible candidates to be exempted from regulation might be:
a. Plant products of biotechnology in which the genetic modification was obtained through a process of biotechnology including nucleotide deletions, single base pair substitutions, or other modifications that could reasonably be expected to be obtained through mutagenic techniques that have commonly been used for plant development since the early 1900s.
b. Insects which are not plant pests transformed using the PiggyBac transposon, but not otherwise containing sequences from plant pests.
Those products of biotechnology which APHIS determines do meet the proposed criteria 1 and 2 listed above and will not be exempted, would undergo a regulatory review. This regulatory review would employ a plant pest and/or noxious weed risk analysis process to determine whether the product of biotechnology poses either a plant pest or noxious weed risk, and therefore would be a regulated organism as defined above.
Under this second alternative, APHIS proposes to eliminate the notification
Under this alternative, APHIS also proposes to eliminate the current petition process for non-regulated status (currently 7 CFR 340.6), as APHIS will conduct new risk analyses consistent with the “analyze first, regulate when necessary” when new information is made available.
Under this second alternative, APHIS is considering whether or how products of biotechnology that are developed for pharmaceutical or industrial purposes would be regulated under the proposed revised regulations. APHIS appreciates that there are aspects of its regulatory program that are well suited to address these types of products, and would like public input on how public health and safety objectives might be achieved for pharmaceutical or industrial products of biotechnology that would pose plant pest or noxious weed risks.
Under this third alternative, APHIS' proposed regulations would substantially increase oversight and resources over those currently used to regulate GE organisms. APHIS would not exempt certain “products of biotechnology” from APHIS regulatory oversight if a “product of biotechnology” was developed using a plant pest; or, if it posed a risk as a noxious weed pursuant to the PPA definition of a noxious weed. Introductions of products of biotechnology that posed a plant pest risk or noxious weed risk would require a permit and conditions would be applied for import, interstate movement, or “outdoor” use.
Under this third alternative, APHIS' proposed regulatory scheme would include the range of actions and processes that would enable APHIS to become, to the extent permitted by its PPA authorities, an all-encompassing, wide-scale regulatory permitting authority but still fully comply with the Coordinated Framework and support the continued development of products of biotechnology. APHIS would use its plant pest and/or noxious weed risk analyses to inform the establishment of appropriate permit conditions to protect agricultural plants and agriculturally important natural resources. For example, APHIS' proposed regulatory scheme under this alterative would evaluate and consider agricultural and mitigation practices such as crop exclusion zones, risk appropriate isolation distances, or other measures that would address and mitigate “damage” as included in the PPA definition of a noxious weed (
Under this third alternative, APHIS' proposed regulatory scheme would also eliminate the notification (currently 7 CFR 340.3) and petition procedures (currently 7 CFR 340.6) since this alternative's regulatory scheme would propose that all “products of biotechnology” that are plants and are captured by the existing plant pest or noxious weed “analysis triggers,” as defined by the PPA, and currently used and applied by APHIS pursuant to the regulations in 7 CFR parts 340 and 360, would require a permit to enable the agency to establish risk appropriate conditions. APHIS would appreciate public input on its proposal, under this alternative, to eliminate notifications and petitions.
Under this fourth alternative, developers would be responsible for ensuring that their respective products of biotechnology do not pose risks as a plant pest or noxious weed pursuant to their respective PPA definitions, and that their activities related to the importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment of their respective products of biotechnology are not in violation of any existing statutes or Federal regulations that relate to plant pests or noxious weeds.
Under this fourth alternative, APHIS would not have a dedicated regulatory scheme to specifically regulate any products of biotechnology that may pose plant pest or noxious weed risks and therefore would not require consultation nor prescribe methods or practices related to any products of biotechnology. Any products of biotechnology that pose plant pests or noxious weed risks would be managed by APHIS using its other existing regulations pursuant to the PPA;
APHIS is requesting comments and information related to the topics and issues presented in this notice so that the scope of the analysis in the draft EIS, including the types and range of reasonable alternatives, is reasonable and appropriate, and proposed revisions to 7 CFR part 340 are well-evaluated. Public input will be helpful in further defining the scope of the issues and reasonable alternatives under consideration. A notice will be published in the
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by March 7, 2016 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, are proposing forest restoration and fuels reduction on portions of approximately 1,270,000 acres of National Forest System lands. The project area consists of selected watersheds amounting to 200,000 acres on the Ochoco, 520,000 acres on the Umatilla, and 550,000 acres on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. Proposed thinning and prescribed fire treatments encompass approximately 580,000 acres across the three National Forests. The project area lies within the Blue Mountain ecoregion in northeast Oregon and southeast Washington, encompasses portions of thirteen counties, and includes shared boundaries with private, tribal, state and other federal lands.
Studies of historical forest conditions can be used to help inform natural ranges of variation in forest structure, composition and density, which are assumed to be resilient to disturbance and change. Fire suppression and past timber management practices in dry forests have increased the abundance of closed-canopied forest stands dominated by smaller diameter, young trees than were present historically. Increased canopy closure has also reduced the amount of forest openings and early seral habitat. Fire suppression has also caused expansion of conifers into aspen stands and historically non-forested areas. Denser forests combined with drought conditions in recent years have contributed to a record number of wildfires, and less resilient forest conditions. There is a need to reduce fuels and move forests to a more resilient structure, composition, density, and pattern.
The purpose of the project is to enhance landscape and species resilience to future wildfire by restoring forests to their natural (historical) range
The USDA Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to disclose the potential environmental effects of implementing restoration treatments on National Forest System lands within the project area.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by 60 days following the date that this notice appears in the
Send written comments to: Blue Mountains Restoration Strategy Team Lead, 72510 Coyote Rd., Pendleton, OR 97801. Comments may also be sent via email to:
Ayn Shlisky, Blue Mountains Restoration Strategy Team Lead, Umatilla National Forest, 72510 Coyote Rd., Pendleton, OR 97801; phone 541-278-3762. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
The USDA Forest Service PNW Region's Eastside Restoration Strategy (ERS) was chartered in January 2013 to accelerate the pace and scale of forest restoration on National Forest System (NFS) lands in eastern Oregon and Washington. The ERS focuses on accelerating forest restoration at a larger scale and faster pace than traditional planning and project implementation processes, The Blue Mountains Forest Resiliency Project (FRP) is part of the ERS, and was chartered by the Forest Supervisors of the Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests to restore the structure, composition, and function of dry forests, and facilitate the effective use, where appropriate, of planned and unplanned landscape scale fire across all forest types on these National Forests. The project area lies within the Blue Mountains ecoregion in northeast Oregon and southeast Washington, and consists of approximately 1,270,000 acres of NFS lands. The overall project planning area consists of selected watersheds amounting to 200,000 acres on the Ochoco, 520,000 acres on the Umatilla, and 550,000 acres on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. It includes portions of 13 counties and shared boundaries with private, tribal, state and other federal lands. The project area coincides with ceded lands of three treaty tribes (Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Nez Perce Tribe and the Confederated Tribes of the Warms Springs Reservation). The Burns-Paiute Tribe, as an Executive Order Tribe, does not have off reservation rights but maintains traditional cultural interests in the Blue Mountain Forest Resiliency Project planning area. This project was intentionally designed to encompass a large scale and narrow scope; test new planning processes; monitor results; learn from project results, and adapt as needed to achieve desired outcomes on the landscape. The project will produce a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which can support decision-making across portions of the three national forests that are not in an Inventoried Roadless Area, designated Wilderness area, Wild and Scenic River, Research Natural Area, or other management area restricted from implementing the proposed activities, or not already covered by similar, existing forest restoration planning efforts.
The 2015 fire season set a new record for the number of acres burned in the United States, totaling over 10 million acres. In 2015, the Blue Mountains National Forests of Oregon and Washington reported over 282,000 acres burned in wildfires. Throughout the FRP area, unusually large and severe wildfires have become more common due to decades of fire suppression, past timber management practices, and climate change. Wildfire transmission to the rural-wildland interface, private forestlands and woodlots, campgrounds, guard stations, communication towers, and other high value resources; and the increasing cost of fire suppression are of major concern to local communities and land managers. Studies of historical forest conditions can be used to help inform natural ranges of variation (RV) in forest structure, composition, density, and pattern, which are assumed to be resilient to disturbance and change. Dry upland forests have become denser and expanded into historically non-forested areas, ladder fuels have increased, and the abundance of large and/or fire-tolerant tree species has declined relative to the RV. Dry upland forest types are also showing a deficit of open canopied stands dominated by large, fire-tolerant trees of ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir. Some areas show a deficit of large tree dominated, closed-canopied stands. Forests within the project area have also become increasingly vulnerable to uncharacteristic outbreaks of insects and diseases. Plant and animal species adapted to historical forest structures and disturbance regimes are also at risk of loss. The economic livelihood of several communities is threatened by the potential loss of jobs and industries dependent on resilient forest systems and their active restoration.
The current pace of active forest restoration with thinning and prescribed burning in the Blue Mountains is not keeping pace with forest growth. Over 2.3 million acres in the Blue Mountains are in need of active management toward the RV, with over 1.6 million of these acres occurring on NFS lands. Scenario modelling by the Forest Service in April 2013 revealed that at the current rate of project planning and implementation, the RV on NFS lands in the Blue Mountains would not be achieved for decades, if at all. Active forest management depends on thriving local restoration industries, helps maintain jobs and consistency of forest products from national forestlands, and can reduce fire suppression costs. The existence of active local collaborative groups within the project area provides opportunities to more effectively integrate a range of social values and concerns into project plans. To create a
Existing conditions for dry forests on the Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests differ from the RV in the amounts of small tree versus large tree dominated forests, and open versus closed-canopied forests. The average of RV is about 4% of dry forests for small tree, closed-canopied stands, where trees are mostly less than about 20″ dbh and canopy cover is greater than about 40%. Current conditions of these forests are 15%, 40% and 55% for the Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, respectively.
The average of RV is about 10% of dry forests for large tree, closed-canopied stands, where trees are mostly greater than about 20″ dbh and canopy cover is greater than about 40%. Current conditions of these forests are 50%, 2%, and 1% for the Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, respectively.
The average of RV is about 55% of dry forests for large tree, open-canopied stands, where trees are mostly greater than about 20″ dbh and canopy cover is less than about 40%. Current conditions fo these forests are about 10%, 2%, and 3% for the Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, respectively.
Fire regimes also differ from the RV. The continuity of surface, ladder, and crown fuel is increasing and generally resulting in a change in fire regime from lower severity, higher frequency fire towards higher severity, lower frequency fire. The 50 year average of annual acres burned was about 18,000, 26,000 and 34,000 acres for the Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, respectively, before the current fire suppression era. The majority of these fires were of low severity, and relatively high frequency. The available current fire suppression era fire history for these forests indicates that on average about 4,000, 5,000, and 13,000 acres burn annually. The size and frequency of high severity fires are generally greater, and the size and frequency of low severity fires are generally lower across Blue Mountains forests than desired. Transmission of high severity fire from NFS lands to other land ownerships is increasing, in some cases resulting in economic and infrastructure losses.
The project purpose and need is represented by differences between existing and desired conditions based on Forest Plan management direction. In most cases, desired conditions are similar to the RV, except where the Forest Plan or the existence of conflicting values specify otherwise. In general, there is a need in the project area to:
Reduce overabundant closed-canopied forest stands in dry forest; maintain existing old forests and increase their abundance over the long term; increase the abundance of fire-tolerant tree species and large tree dominated stands; and restore forest patterns and disturbance regimes that are more reflective of the RV, including reestablishing historic openings and grasslands;
Enhance landscape resilience to future wildfire, and insect and disease outbreaks, and increase public and firefighter safety in the event of a wildfire;
Enhance the diversity and quality of habitat conditions across the planning area to improve overall abundance and distribution of wildlife habitat that is more reflective of the RV;
Restore tribal treaty resources, and high social values associated with traditional uses and culture that are related to the forest restoration need;
Maintain and enhance resources of high social value, and support local economies by providing a diversity of resource management activities, commodity outputs, ecosystem services, and employment opportunities from public lands;
Improve existing road networks to provide access for forest treatments while meeting forest plan standards and guidelines as well as Endangered Species Act consultation guidance;
Build and strengthen relationships among National Forest stakeholders through collaborative processes; and,
Reduce fuel loading in strategic locations to promote safe and effective use of planned and unplanned fire.
The FRP will operate within social, policy, regulatory, and legal constraints, and Forest Plan goals and objectives, except where forest plan amendments are needed and proposed. This proposal was developed under the guidance of the 1989 Ochoco National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP); 1990 Umatilla National Forest LRMP; 1990 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest LRMP, and is compatible with the Cohesive Wildfire Strategy.
The proposed action responds to the purpose and need for the FRP. No treatments are proposed in any area that is within an existing, active project planning area, a recently burned or implemented project area, Wilderness, Research Natural Area, Inventoried Roadless Area, or in an area identified by the respective Forest Supervisor as being of low restoration priority. The proposed action was constructed by comparing current conditions to the RV across all ownerships at the scale of watersheds (5th field hydrologic units of 45,000-200,000 acres each). This “all lands” analysis provided the context for determining the treatment need, and the appropriate level of proposed treatment on NFS lands within the project area. The proposed action discloses the general nature of proposed treatments on NFS lands by National Forest, and potential and existing vegetation types using the best available information. More information and maps can be found on the project Web site
All proposed forest treatments would be designed to create forest patterns more reflective of natural disturbance regimes, and facilitate safe and effective fire management to conserve high value resources. Forest treatments may include one or more of the following activities: Thinning/low severity fire—removes small (5-10″ dbh) and medium sized (10-20″ dbh) trees to reduce stand density and canopy cover, and with time and growth, lead to an increase in average stand diameter.
Opening—through mixed severity fire or mechanical treatments, removes a major proportion of medium and large trees (>20″ dbh) to create openings, or canopy gaps of early seral structure and composition.
Other disturbance/growth—thinning to manage for young stands, while increasing tree growth and vigor.
Growth with low severity fire—allows forest succession and growth to occur while maintaining an open forest canopy.
Grassland restoration—thinning and fire treatments to reduce conifer expansion within grasslands, and reestablish historic grassland/forest edges.
Aspen enhancement—thinning and fire treatments to reduce conifer expansion within aspen inclusions, and stimulate aspen regeneration to the historical extent of the aspen clone.
Strategic fuel treatments—includes any of the treatment types above, and other actions that change fuel abundance and arrangement, and decrease resistance to wildfire control at strategic locations to facilitate safe and effective fire management at appropriate spatial scales.
On the Ochoco National Forest, thinning and low severity fire would be applied to dry forests on about 115,000 acres within the project planning area:
20,500 acres of smaller diameter (<20″ dbh), closed-canopied (> about 40% canopy cover) stands to move them toward more open conditions, and encourage growth in average diameter. Opening treatments would also be used to create canopy gaps, where needed; 18,000 acres of smaller diameter, open canopied (< about 40% canopy cover) stands to move them toward more open conditions encourage growth in average diameter, and/or restore desirable fire regimes. Opening treatments would also be used to create canopy gaps, where needed;
55,000 acres of larger diameter (> about 20″ dbh), closed-canopied stands to move them toward more open conditions, and encourage growth in average diameter;
15,000 acres in larger diameter, open stands to restore desirable fire regimes, and encourage growth in average diameter without reducing the abundance of large tree, open canopied stands overall;
4,000 acres for grassland restoration; and
100 acres of aspen inclusions to reduce conifer expansion and stimulate aspen regeneration.
On the Ochoco National Forest, strategic fuel treatments could be applied on up to 5,800 acres of smaller diameter moist and cold forest to achieve desired planned and unplanned fire behavior, facilitate safe and effective fire management, conserve high value resources, and restore fire at landscape scales more reflective of the RV. These treatments would be integrated with upland dry forest treatments to achieve landscape-level objectives.
On the Umatilla National Forest, thinning and low severity fire would be applied to dry forests on about 125,000 acres within the project planning area:
69,500 acres of smaller diameter, closed-canopied stands to move them toward more open conditions and encourage growth in average diameter. Opening treatments would also be used to create canopy gaps, where needed;
36,000 acres of smaller diameter, open stands to move them toward more open conditions and encourage growth in average diameter, and/or restore desirable fire regimes. Opening treatments would also be used to create canopy gaps, where needed;
1,000 acres of larger diameter, closed-canopied stands to move them toward more open conditions, and encourage growth in average diameter;
4,200 acres of larger diameter, open stands to restore desirable fire regimes, and encourage growth in average diameter without reducing the abundance of large tree, open canopied stands overall;
14,000 acres for grassland restoration; and
300 acres of aspen inclusions to reduce conifer expansion and stimulate aspen regeneration.
On the Umatilla National Forest, strategic fuel treatments could be applied on up to about 87,500 acres of smaller diameter moist and cold forest to achieve desired planned and unplanned fire behavior, facilitate safe and effective fire management, conserve high value resources, and restore fire at landscape scales more reflective of the RV. These treatments would be integrated with upland dry forest treatments to achieve landscape-level objectives.
On the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, thinning and low severity fire would be applied to dry forests on about 190,000 acres within the project planning area:
127,500 acres of smaller diameter, closed-canopied stands to move them toward more open conditions and encourage growth in average diameter. Opening treatments would also be used to create canopy gaps, where needed;
39,500 acres of smaller diameter, open stands to move them toward more open conditions, encourage growth in average diameter, and/or restore desirable fire regimes. Opening treatments would also be used to create canopy gaps, where needed;
1,000 acres of larger diameter, closed-canopied stands to move them toward more open conditions, and encourage growth in average diameter;
7,200 acres in larger diameter, open dry forests to restore desirable fire regimes, and encourage growth in average diameter without reducing the abundance of large tree, open canopied stands overall;
15,000 acres for grassland restoration; and
200 acres of aspen inclusions to reduce conifer expansion and stimulate aspen regeneration.
On the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, strategic fuel treatments could be applied on up to 90,000 acres of smaller diameter moist and cold forest to achieve desired planned and unplanned fire behavior, facilitate safe and effective fire management, conserve high value resources, and restore fire at landscape scales more reflective of the RV. These treatments would be integrated with upland dry forest treatments to achieve landscape-level objectives.
Forest treatments in any Category of riparian habitat conservation area would be limited to prescribed fire and small diameter thinning (<9″ dbh), and adhere to the Blue Mountains Project Design Criteria, which were developed under programmatic informal consultation between the Wallowa-Whitman, Umatilla (and Malheur) National Forests and the National Marine Fisheries Service (November 2013).
Any treatment in old forest management areas, as designated in the respective forest plan, would be to support development of old forest characteristics and/or achieve forest plan desired conditions.
The proposed action would utilize the existing road system currently in place to facilitate implementation of vegetation and strategic fuel treatment activities. No new road construction is proposed, unless it is to meet standard and guidelines or Endangered Species Act consultation guidance for road location (
Additional benefits of implementation of the proposed action include maintenance and enhancement of culturally significant resources, settings, viewsheds, and sensitive plant and animal species habitat, including those
Connected actions that would be analyzed as a part of the EIS include hazard tree removal, snag creation, down wood creation, soil remediation (subsoiling, scarification), invasive plant treatment, native seeding of disturbed sites, system road reconstruction, road maintenance, re-closure of roads opened to implement treatments, water source development, material source development, installation of erosion control features, culvert replacement for haul support, activity fuel preparation and treatment, hand line construction, temporary fencing, stump treatment for annosus root rot, and reforestation. A suite of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Project Design Criteria (PDC) will be integrated into the design of alternatives and the analysis of effects to ensure that relevant natural resources, tribal treaty resources, and social values are managed and protected in a manner consistent with policy, law, and regulation. BMPs and PDCs will also serve to ensure that implementation of the actions described in the ROD are properly executed.
The purpose and need for action is consistent with the Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP), as amended and applicable. Other key guiding policies include, but are not limited to, the Endangered Species Act, National Forest Management Act, National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, and all laws and executive orders and Forest Service policies guiding Tribal consultation.
Go to
If necessary to meet the purpose and need of the FRP, the Forest Service may need to amend one or more Forest Plans for activities such as cutting large trees (>21″ in diameter), restoring or conserving old forest characteristics, restoring forest structure in elk habitat, or maintaining current road densities.
The responsible officials for decisions on the Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests are their respective Forest Supervisors.
This proposed action is a proposal and not a decision. The Forest Supervisors of the Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests will decide, for their respective Forests, whether to implement the action as proposed, whether to take no action at this time, or whether to implement any alternatives that are analyzed. The Forest Supervisors will also decide whether to amend their respective Land and Resource Management Plan, if necessary to implement the decision.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. Issues that are raised with the proposal may lead to alternative ways to meet the purpose and need of the project. Scoping will also be used to determine site specific concerns that are relevant to forest treatment locations.
It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment periods and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered.
Several public engagement sessions will be held in Blue Mountains communities in March 2016 before completion of the scoping period.It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the emergency provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Act provides that the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) will issue procedures for requesting such safeguard measures, for making its determinations under Section 332(a) of the Act, and for providing relief under Section 332(b) of the Act. CITA was unable to publish these procedures earlier and is requesting an emergency review of the information collection and procedures from the Office of Management and Budget.
CITA must collect information in order to determine whether a domestic textile or apparel industry is being adversely impacted by imports of these products from Korean, thereby allowing CITA to take corrective action to protect the viability of the domestic textile or apparel industry, subject to section 332(b) of the Act.
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0336, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 or via email at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Wendy Liberante, OMB Desk Officer, Fax number (202) 395-5167 or via the Internet at
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the emergency provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The list of commercially unavailable fibers, yarns, and fabrics may be changed pursuant to the commercial availability provision in Chapter 4, Annex 4-B, Paragraphs 1-13 of the Agreement. Under this provision, interested entities from the United States or Korea have the right to request that a specific fiber, yarn, or fabric be added to, or removed from, the list of commercially unavailable fibers, yarns, and fabrics in Appendix 4-B-1.
Section 202(o)(3) of the Act provides that the President may modify the list of fibers, yarns and fabrics in Appendix 4-B-1 by determining whether additional fibers, yarns, or fabrics are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the United States, and that the President will issue procedures governing the submission of requests and providing an opportunity for interested entities to submit comments. The President delegated the responsibility for publishing the procedures and administering commercial availability requests to the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA), which issues procedures and acts on requests through the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA). OTEXA was unable to publish these procedures earlier and is requesting an emergency review of the information collection and procedures from the Office of Management and Budget.
CITA must collect information about fiber, yarn or fabric technical specifications and the production capabilities of U.S. textile producers to determine whether certain fibers, yarns, or fabrics are available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the United States, subject to Section 202(o)(3) of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, Department Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0336, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Wendy Liberante, OMB Desk Officer, Fax number (202) 395-5167 or via the Internet at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) finds that revocation of
Jacqueline Arrowsmith, Office VII, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5255.
On November 17, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the
On October 30, 2015, the Department received a substantive response from Petitioners, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).
The merchandise subject to these orders is coated paper. The merchandise subject to these orders are provided for under subheadings: 4810.14.11, 4810.14.1900, 4810.14.2010, 4810.14.2090, 4810.14.5000, 4810.14.6000, 4810.14.70, 4810.19.1100, 4810.19.1900, 4810.19.2010, 4810.19.2090, 4810.22.1000, 4810.22.50, 4810.22.6000, 4810.22.70, 4810.29.1000, 4810.29.5000, 4810.29.6000, 4810.29.70, 4810.32, 4810.39 and 4810.92 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive.
All issues in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy, the net countervailable subsidy rate likely to prevail if the CVD order were revoked, and the nature of the subsidies. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Pursuant to sections 752(b)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the CVD order on certain coated paper from Indonesia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a net countervailable subsidy at the rates listed below:
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
The Department is issuing and publishing these final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Andrew Medley or Shanah Lee, Office III, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4987 and (202) 482-6386, respectively.
On January 4, 2016, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the preliminary determinations of sales for the antidumping investigations of corrosion-resistant steel products (“corrosion-resistant steel”) from India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan.
This correction to the
The products covered by this investigation are certain flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. The products covered include coils that have a width of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (
(1) where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and
(2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (
Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
• 2.50 percent of manganese, or
• 3.30 percent of silicon, or
• 1.50 percent of copper, or
• 1.50 percent of aluminum, or
• 1.25 percent of chromium, or
• 0.30 percent of cobalt, or
• 0.40 percent of lead, or
• 2.00 percent of nickel, or
• 0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or
• 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or
• 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or
• 0.30 percent of vanadium, or
• 0.30 percent of zirconium
Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.
For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (“IF”)) steels and high strength low alloy (“HSLA”) steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum.
Furthermore, this scope also includes Advanced High Strength Steels (“AHSS”) and Ultra High Strength Steels (“UHSS”), both of which are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels.
Subject merchandise also includes corrosion-resistant steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching and/or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope corrosion resistant steel.
All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:
• Flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating;
• Clad products in straight lengths of 4.7625 mm or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness; and
• Certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant flat-rolled steel products less than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a flat-rolled steel product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.
The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000.
The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7210.90.1000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.91.0000, 7225.92.0000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.99.0110, 7226.99.0130, 7226.99.0180, 7228.60.6000, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty order (CVD) order on heavy iron construction castings (heavy iron castings) from Brazil would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
Patricia Tran, Office III, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1503.
On October 1, 2015, the Department initiated a sunset review of the CVD order on castings from Brazil pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
The Department received adequate substantive responses collectively from the domestic industry within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).
The merchandise subject to the CVD order is castings from Brazil. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) item number 7325.10.00. Although the HTSUS number is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive. For a full description of the scope,
The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum address the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy, the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the order were revoked, and the nature of the subsidy.
Pursuant to section 752(b)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the CVD order on heavy iron castings from Brazil would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the rate listed below:
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
The Department is issuing and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
NMFS will host a meeting of the Council Coordination Committee (CCC), consisting of the Regional Fishery Management Council chairs, vice chairs, and executive directors on February 24-25, 2016. The intent of this meeting is to discuss issues of relevance to the Councils, including budget allocations for FY2016 and budget planning for FY2017 and beyond; an overview of the Saltonstall-Kennedy FY15-16 grants process; the FY2016 legislative outlook; updates on electronic monitoring, NMFS bycatch strategy and catch share program review guidance, the NMFS climate science strategy, ecosystem based fisheries management, stock assessment prioritization; and Council workgroup updates, including Citizen Science Workshop and other topics related to implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act.
The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, February 24, 2016, recess at 5 p.m. or when business is complete; and reconvene at 9 a.m. on Thursday, February 25, 2016, and adjourn by 3:30 p.m. or when business is complete.
The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn Capitol Hill, 550 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, telephone 202-479-4000, fax 202-288-4627.
Brian Fredieu: telephone 301-427-8505 or email at
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act established the CCC by amending section 302 (16 U.S.C. 1852) of the MSA. The committee consists of the chairs, vice chairs, and executive directors of each of the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils authorized by the MSA or other Council members or staff. NMFS will host this meeting and provide reports to the CCC for its information and discussion. All sessions are open to the public.
The order in which the agenda items are addressed may change. The CCC will meet as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Brian Fredieu at 301-427-8505 at least five working days prior to the meeting.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List.
This action adds products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.
Effective Date: 3/6/2016.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 6/12/2015 (80 FR 33485-33489), 12/18/2015 (80 FR 79031-79032), and 1/8/2016 (81 FR 916-917), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products listed
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 §§ U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products are added to the Procurement List:
On 12/31/2015 (80 FR 81810-81811), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed Deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to delete services from the Procurement List that will be provided by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
The following services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before March 7, 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 Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581 or by Hand Delivery/Courier at the same address.
A copy of the supporting statements for the collection of information discussed above may be obtained by visiting
Gregory Scopino, Special Counsel, Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5175, email:
• OMB Control No. 3038-0068 (Confirmation, Portfolio Reconciliation, and Portfolio Compression Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants).
• OMB Control No. 3038-0083 (Orderly Liquidation Termination Provision in Swap Trading Relationship Documentation for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants).
• OMB Control No. 3038-0088 (Swap Trading Relationship Documentation Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants).
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
44 U.S.C. 3501
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of availability.
The Department of the Army announces the availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) to lease land and grant easements on Schofield Barracks and Wheeler Army Airfield to Hawaiian Electric Company (Hawaiian Electric) for the construction, ownership, operation, and maintenance of a 50-megawatt (MW) capacity, biofuel-capable generating station, referred to as the Schofield Generating Station, and associated power poles, high-tension power lines, and related equipment and facilities. The action was the preferred alternative identified in the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for proposed Schofield Generating Station Project (SGSP). The ROD identifies the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with the SGSP, none of which were determined to be significant adverse effects.
The selected action will provide improved energy security to the Army and citizens of Oahu, support renewable energy goals, and improve future electrical generation capabilities on Oahu by providing a new secure, firm, dispatchable, flexible, and renewable energy generation to the grid on Oahu, Hawaii. Implementation of the preferred alternative will not result in significant impacts. The Army and Hawaiian Electric will implement numerous best management practices to avoid or minimize adverse environmental effects.
The ROD can be downloaded at
Please contact Ms. Lisa Graham, NEPA Coordinator, U.S. Army Garrison—Hawaii. Ms. Graham can be reached by phone at (808) 656-3075, or by email at
The EIS examined the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts from implementing the proposed action, which is for the Army to lease of 8.13 acres of land and grant a 2.5-acre interconnection easement to Hawaiian Electric Company (Hawaiian Electric) on Schofield Barracks and Wheeler Army Airfield for the construction, ownership, operation, and maintenance of a 50-megawatt (MW) capacity, biofuel-capable generating station, referred to as the Schofield Generating Station, and associated power poles, high-tension power lines, and related equipment and facilities (together, the Schofield Generating Station Project [SGSP]).
The selected action best meets the Army's needs to provide improved energy security to the U.S. Army Garrison—Hawaii at Schofield Barracks, Wheeler Army Airfield, and Field Station Kunia and to provide new secure, firm, flexible, and renewable energy generation to the grid on Oahu, Hawaii. The selected action will also assist the Army in supporting renewable energy-related laws and Executive Orders and meeting its renewable energy goals; assist Hawaiian Electric in meeting the Hawaii Renewable Portfolio Standard goals; and improve future electrical generation on Oahu.
The electricity produced by the SGSP will ordinarily supply power to all Hawaiian Electric customers through the island-wide electrical grid. During outages that meet the criteria specified in the Operating Agreement between the Army and Hawaiian Electric, SGSP output would first be provided to Army facilities at Schofield Barracks, Wheeler Army Airfield, and Field Station Kunia up to their peak demand of 32 MW, to meet their missions, and would additionally support the grid up to the station's full capacity. If there were a full island outage, the generating station could be used to restart other generating stations on the island.
The ROD incorporates analysis contained in the final EIS for the proposed SGSP, which considered all comments provided during formal comment and review periods. The ROD also considered all comments provided during the 30-day waiting period that was initiated when the Notice of Availability for the final EIS was published in the
The Army took this material into account in making its decision, but determined that it did not constitute significant new information relevant to environmental concerns that would require supplementation of the final EIS. Comments received and the Army evaluation of those comments are summarized in the ROD.
The final EIS evaluated the impacts on land use; airspace use; visual resources; air quality, including climate and greenhouse gasses; noise; traffic and transportation; water resources; geology and soils; biological resources; cultural resources; hazardous and toxic substances; socioeconomics, including environmental justice; and utilities and infrastructure.
Implementation of this decision is expected to result in less than significant adverse impacts for all resources. Best management practices and design measures that would avoid or minimize adverse effects will be implemented for these resources: visual, air quality, noise, traffic and transportation, water, geology and soils, biological resources, cultural resources, and hazardous and toxic substances.
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by March 7, 2016.
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
National Security Agency, DoD.
Notice.
The National Security Agency hereby gives notice of its intent to grant Nguran Corporation a revocable, non-assignable, exclusive, license to practice the following Government-Owned invention as described and claimed in United States Patent Application No.14/120,606 entitled: “Satisfiability Filter and Query Tool and Method of Building a Satisfiability Filter and Query Tool,” filed on June 9, 2014 and any related non-provisional patent applications and all Letters Patent issuing thereon, and any continuation, continuation-in-part or division of said non-provisional patent application and any reissue or extension of said Letters Patent.
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license has until February 22, 2016 to file written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Written objections are to be filed with the National Security Agency Technology Transfer Program, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6843, Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6843.
Linda L. Burger, Director, Technology Transfer Program, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6843, Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6843, telephone (443) 634-3518.
The prospective exclusive license will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The patent rights in this invention have been assigned to the United States Government as represented by the National Security Agency.
Joint Service Committee on Military Justice (JSC), DoD.
Annual Review of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12473—Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984, and Department of Defense Directive 5500.17, Role and Responsibility of the Joint Service Committee (JSC) on Military Justice, the JSC is conducting its annual review of the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), United States.
The committee invites members of the public to suggest changes to the MCM. Please provide supporting rationale for any proposed changes.
Proposed changes must be received no later than April 5, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
•
Captain Harlye S.M. Carlton, USMC, Executive Secretary, JSC, at (703) 693-9299 or via email at
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.
Sarah A. Ragan or Heather N. Harwell, DSCA/LMO, (703) 604-1546/(703) 607-5339.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 15-64 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Non-MDE included with this request are Hellfire missile conversion; blast fragmentation sleeves and installation kits; containers; transportation; spare
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
The Government of Iraq has requested a possible sale of five thousand (5,000) AGM-114K/N/R Hellfire missiles; Ten (10) 114K M36E9 Captive Air Training Missiles; associated equipment; and defense services. The estimated major defense equipment (MDE) value is $750 million. The total estimated value is $800 million.
The proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security goals of the United States by helping to improve a critical capability of the Iraq Security Forces in defeating the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
Iraq will use the Hellfire missiles to improve the Iraq Security Forces' capability to support ongoing combat operations. Iraq will also use this capability in future contingency operations. Iraq, which already has Hellfire missiles, will face no difficulty absorbing these additional missiles into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin Corporation in Bethesda, Maryland. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives in Iraq.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
The Hellfire Missile is primarily an air-to-surface missile with a multi-mission, multitarget, precision-strike capability. The Hellfire can be launched from multiple air platforms and is the primary precision weapon for the United States.
The Captive Air Training Missile (CATM) is a training missile (Non-NATO) that consists of a functional guidance section coupled to an inert missile bus. The missile has an operational semi-active laser seeker that can search for and lock-on to laser-designated targets for pilot training, but it does not have a warhead or propulsion section and cannot be launched.
The highest level of classified information that could be disclosed by a proposed sale or by testing of the end item is SECRET. Information required for maintenance or training is CONFIDENTIAL. Vulnerability data, countermeasures, vulnerability/susceptibility analyses, and threat definitions are classified SECRET or CONFIDENTIAL. Release of detailed information to include discussions, reports and studies of system capabilities, vulnerabilities and limitations that lead to conclusions on specific tactics or other counter countermeasures (CCM) is not authorized for disclosure.
If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
A determination has been made that the Government of Iraq can provide substantially the same degree of protection as the U.S. Government for the information proposed for release.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.
Sarah A. Ragan or Heather N. Harwell, DSCA/LMO, (703) 604-1546/(703) 607-5339.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 15-52 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Also included are items of significant military equipment (SME), spare and repair parts, publications, technical documents, weapons components, support equipment, personnel training, training equipment, Aviation Training, Contract Engineering Services, U.S. Government and contractor logistics, engineering, and technical support services, as well as other related elements of logistics and program support. Additional services provided are Aviation Contract Logistics Services including maintenance, supply, component repair/return, tools and manpower. This notification also includes Base Operations Support Services including construction, outfitting, supply, security, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, utilities, power generation, food, water, morale/recreation services, aircraft support and total manpower.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act
The Government of Iraq requested a possible sale of additional weapons, munitions, equipment, and logistics support for its F-16 aircraft.
Also included are items of significant military equipment (SME), spare and repair parts, publications, technical documents, weapons components, support equipment, personnel training, training equipment, Aviation Training, Contract Engineering Services, U.S. Government and contractor logistics, engineering, and technical support services, as well as other related elements of logistics and program support. Additional services provided are Aviation Contract Logistics Services including maintenance, supply, component repair/return, tools and manpower. This notification also includes Base Operations Support Services including construction, outfitting, supply, security, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, utilities, power generation, food, water, morale/recreation services, aircraft support and total manpower. The total estimated value of MDE is $ .550 billion. The total overall estimated value is $1.950 billion.
This proposed sale contributes to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a strategic partner. This proposed sale directly supports Iraq and serves the interests of the people of Iraq and the United States.
Iraq previously purchased thirty-six (36) F-16 aircraft. Iraq requires these additional weapons, munitions, and technical services to maintain the operational capabilities of its aircraft. This proposed sale enables Iraq to fully maintain and employ its aircraft and sustain pilot training to effectively protect Iraq from current and future threats.
The proposed sale of these additional weapons, munitions, equipment, and support does not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal vendors are:
There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale requires approximately four hundred (400) U.S. Government and contractor personnel to reside in Iraq through calendar year 2020 as part of this sale to establish maintenance support, on-the-job maintenance training, and maintenance advice.
There is no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. This sale sustains sensitive technology previously sold to Iraq. The F-16C/D Block 50/52 weapon system is UNCLASSIFIED, except as noted below. The aircraft uses the F-16 airframe and features advanced avionics and systems. It contains the Pratt and Whitney F-100-PW-229 or the General Electric F-110-GE-129 engine, AN/APG-68V(9) radar, digital flight control system, internal and external electronic warfare equipment, Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) (without Mode IV), operational flight program, and software computer programs.
2. The AIM-9M-8/9 Sidewinder is a supersonic, heat-seeking, air-to-air missile carried by fighter aircraft. The hardware, software, and maintenance are classified CONFIDENTIAL. Pilot training, technical data, and documentation necessary for performance and operating information are classified SECRET.
3. The Paveway II/III (GBU-10/12/24) weapon is classified CONFIDENTIAL. Information revealing target designation tactics and associated aircraft maneuvers, the probability of destroying specific/peculiar targets, vulnerabilities regarding countermeasures and the electromagnetic environment is classified SECRET.
4. The AGM-65D/G/H/K Maverick air-to-ground missile is SECRET. The SECRET aspects of the Maverick system are tactics, information revealing its vulnerability to countermeasures, and counter-countermeasures. Manuals and maintenance have portions that are classified CONFIDENTIAL. Performance and operating logic of the countermeasures circuits are SECRET.
5. The Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) is a modified HGU-55/P helmet that incorporates a visor-projected Heads-Up Display to cue weapons and aircraft sensors to air and ground targets. The hardware is UNCLASSIFIED. The technical data and documents are classified up to SECRET.
6. The PGU-28 20mm High Explosive Incendiary ammunition is a low-drag round designed to reduce in-flight drag and deceleration. It is a semi-armor piercing high explosive incendiary round. The PGU-27 A/B 20mm ammunition is the target practice version of the PGU-28. Both the PGU-27 and the PGU-28 are UNCLASSIFIED.
7. The M61 20mm Vulcan Rotary Cannon is a six-barreled automatic cannon chambered in 20x102mm. This weapon is fixed mounted on fighter aircraft and is used for damaging and destroying aerial and ground targets. The cannon and the associated ammunition are UNCLASSIFIED.
8. The MK-82 and MK84 are 500-lb and 2000-lb general purpose bombs respectively. These blast and fragmentation bombs are designed to attack soft and intermediately protected targets. The weapons are UNCLASSIFIED.
9. The BLU-111 is a 500-lb bomb and the BLU-117 is a 2,000- lb bomb. Both bombs are similar to the MK-84 and are filled with the Insensitive Munitions explosive to resist exploding in fuel related fires. They are used by the U.S. Navy. The weapons are UNCLASSIFIED.
10. MJU-7 Flares are a magnesium-based Infrared (IR) countermeasure used for decoying air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles. The MJU-7 hardware is UNCLASSIFIED. Countermeasure effectiveness information is classified up to SECRET.
11. RR-170 Chaff is a countermeasure used to decoy radars and radar-guided missiles. The hardware is UNCLASSIFIED. Countermeasure effectiveness information is classified up to SECRET.
12. Software, hardware, and other data/information, which is classified or sensitive, is reviewed prior to release to protect system vulnerabilities, design data, and performance parameters. Some end-item hardware, software, and other data identified above are classified at the CONFIDENTIAL and SECRET level. Potential compromise of these systems is controlled through management of the basic software programs of highly sensitive systems and software-controlled weapon systems on a case-by-case basis.
13. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems which might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
14. This sale is necessary to further the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification. Moreover, the benefits derived from this sale, as outlined in the Policy Justification, outweigh the potential damage that could result if the sensitive technology were revealed to unauthorized persons.
15. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Iraq.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.
Sarah A. Ragan or Heather N. Harwell, DSCA/LMO, (703) 604-1546/(703) 607-5339.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 15-65 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Oman has requested a possible sale of:
The estimated value of MDE is $51 million. The total estimated cost of this effort is $51 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country which has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.
The proposed sale of the TOW 2B Missiles and technical support will advance Oman's efforts to develop an integrated ground defense capability. Oman will use this capability to strengthen its homeland defense and enhance interoperability with the U.S. and other allies. Oman will have no difficulty absorbing these missiles into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Arizona.
There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the U.S. Government or contractor representatives to travel to Oman for multiple periods for equipment de-processing/fielding, system checkout and new equipment training. There will be no more than three (3) contractor personnel in Oman at any one time and all efforts will take less than fourteen (14) weeks in total.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The Radio Frequency (RF) Tube-launched Optically-tracked Wire guided (TOW) 2B Aero Missile (BGM-71F-3-RF) is a fly-over, shoot-down version with the actual missile flight path offset above the gunner's aim point. The TOW 2B flies over the target and uses a laser profilometer and magnetic sensor to detect and fire two downward-directed, explosively-formed penetrator warheads into the target. The TOW 2B has a range of 200 to 3750m. A Radio Frequency (RF) Data link, replaced the traditional TOW wire guidance link in all new production variants of the TOW beginning in FY 07. No RF TOW AERO technical data will be released during program development without prior approval from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Defense Exports and Cooperation. The hardware for the TOW 2B is UNCLASSIFIED. Software for performance data, lethality penetration and sensors are classified SECRET.
2. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
3. A determination has been made that the recipient country can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
4. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Oman.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
Under the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) awards grants on a formula basis to eligible local educational agencies (LEAs) to address the unique needs of rural school districts. In this notice, we establish the deadline for submission of fiscal year (FY) 2016 SRSA grant applications.
An eligible LEA that has not previously submitted an application for SRSA funds in any prior year must submit an application electronically by the deadline in this notice.
David Cantrell, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 3E303, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-5990 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or a text telephone, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
The FY 2016 SRSA awards will be made under the statutory authority in title VI, part B, subpart 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-110). Recently, the SRSA program was reauthorized under title V, part B, subpart 1 of the ESEA, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (Pub. L. 114-95). However, under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113), changes to the SRSA program under ESSA will not take effect until the 2017-18 school year.
For FY 2016, an LEA (including a public charter school that is considered an LEA under State law) is eligible for an award under the SRSA program if—
(a) The total number of students in average daily attendance at all of the schools served by the LEA is fewer than 600, or each county in which a school served by the LEA is located has a total population density of fewer than 10 persons per square mile; and
(b)(1) All of the schools served by the LEA are designated with a school locale code of 7 or 8 by the Department's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES); or
(2) The Secretary has determined, based on a demonstration by the LEA and concurrence of the State educational agency, that the LEA is located in an area defined as rural by a governmental agency of the State.
For FY 2016, the school locale codes are the locale codes determined on the basis of the NCES school code methodology in place on the date of enactment of section 6211(b) of the ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
Under the regulations in 34 CFR 75.104(a), the Secretary makes a grant only to an eligible party that submits an
We intend to provide, by April 1, 2016, a list of LEAs eligible for FY 2016 funds on the Department's Web site at
An eligible LEA that is required to submit an application to receive FY 2016 SRSA funds must submit an electronic application by May 2, 2016, 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time. Any application received from an eligible LEA after this deadline will be funded only to the extent that funds are available after the Department awards grants to other eligible LEAs under the program.
Submission of an electronic application involves the use of the Department's G5 System. Prospective applicants can access the electronic application for the SRSA Program at:
Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
The official version of this document is the document published in the
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Sections 6211-6213 of the ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
This notice identifies the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff's revised schedule for the completion of the environmental impact statement (EIS) for LNG Development Company, LLC's and Oregon Pipeline Company, LLC's Oregon LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project and Northwest Pipeline LLC's Washington Expansion Project. The first notice of schedule, issued on April 17, 2015, identified February 12, 2016 as the final EIS issuance date. However, additional information is required to respond to comments on the draft EIS. As a result, staff has requested supplemental information from the applicants and revised the schedule for issuance of the final EIS.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, an additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the projects' progress.
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EIS and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription (
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests, is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
Take notice that the 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
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 exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On November 27, 2015, Energy Resources USA, Inc. (Energy Resources)
Energy Resources' permit application is filed in competition with Lock+
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A 500-foot-long, 200-foot-wide intake channel; (2) a 131-foot-long, 197-foot-wide powerhouse containing three generating units with a total capacity of 33 megawatts; (3) a 400-foot-long, 20-foot-wide tailrace; (4) a 6.9/69 kilo-Volt (kV) substation; (5) a 34-mile-long addition to the existing access road; and (6) a 3-mile-long, 69 kV transmission line. The proposed project would have an estimated average annual generation of 186,000 megawatt-hours, and operate as directed by the Corps.
Applicant Contact: Mr. Ander Gonzalez, Energy Resources USA Inc., 2655 Le Jeune Road, Suite 804, Coral Gables, Florida 33134; Phone: (954) 248-8425; Email:
FERC Contact: Christiane Casey; phone: (202) 502-8577.
Deadline for filing comments and motions to intervene: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments and motions to intervene using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at
Western Area Power Administration, Department of Energy
Extension of scoping period.
On December 18, 2015, Western Area Power Administration (Western), an agency of the Department of Energy (DOE), announced the Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the proposed 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line to be located within Colusa and Sutter Counties, California. This proposed Project is known as the Colusa-Sutter (CoSu) 500-kV Transmission Line Project. In that previous notice, Western described the schedule for scoping meetings and advised the public that comments on the scope of the EIS/EIR were due by February 16, 2016. By this notice, Western extends the due date for comments on the scope of the EIS/EIR to April 18, 2016.
The date to provide comments on the scope of the EIS/EIR is extended to April 18, 2016.
Written comments on the proposed scope of the Draft EIS/EIR for this proposed Project may be mailed or emailed to Mr. Andrew M. Montaño, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Document Manager, Western Area Power Administration, Headquarters, P.O. Box 281213, Lakewood, CO 80228-8213, or by email:
For further information and/or to have your name added to our mailing list, please contact Andrew M. Montaño, at (720) 962-7253 or at the address listed above in the
For general information on DOE's NEPA review procedures or status of a NEPA review, contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director of NEPA Policy and Compliance, GC-54, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone (202) 586-4600 or (800) 472-2756; or email:
For general information on the SMUD CEQA review procedures or status of the CEQA review, please contact Ms. Emily Bacchini, Environmental Management Specialist, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 6201 S. Street, Mailstop H201, Sacramento, CA 95852-1830; telephone (916) 732-6334; email:
On December 18, 2015, Western announced the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the CoSu 500-kV Transmission Line Project (80 FR 79037). The EIS/EIR will examine the potential environmental effects of the CoSu transmission line. Western will prepare the EIS/EIR with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, as the lead state agency. In the previous notice, Western described the schedule for scoping meetings for the EIS/EIR, and advised the public that comments regarding the scope of the EIS/EIR were due by February 16, 2016. Western has received requests allowing for more time to comment. By this notice, Western extends the due date for comments on the scope of the EIS/EIR to April 18, 2016.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received an application to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is
Comments must be received on or before March 7, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
EPA has received an application to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on this application. Notice of receipt of this application does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.
7 U.S.C. 136
Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs).
Filed 01/25/2016 Through 01/29/2016.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability; Clean Air Act Section 105 grantee performance evaluation reports.
EPA's grant regulations (40 CFR 35.115) require the Agency to
The reports may be examined at the EPA's Region 4 office, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, in the Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
Gwendolyn Graf (404) 562- 9289 for information concerning the states and local agencies of Alabama; Tennessee and the state agency of South Carolina; Angela Isom (404) 562-9092 for the state and local agencies of Florida; Mary Echols (404) 562-9053 for the state agency of Georgia; and Shantel Shelmon (404) 562-9817 for the state and local agencies of North Carolina and Kentucky and the state agency of Mississippi. They may be contacted at the Region 4 address mentioned in the previous section of this notice.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability; Clean Air Act Section 105 grantee performance evaluation reports.
EPA's grant regulations (40 CFR 35.115) require the Agency to evaluate the performance of agencies which receive grants. EPA's regulations for regional consistency (40 CFR 56.7) require that the Agency notify the public of the availability of the reports of such evaluations. EPA performed end-of-year evaluations of eight state air pollution control programs (Alabama Department of Environmental Management; Florida Department of Environmental Protection; Georgia Department of Natural Resources; Commonwealth of Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet; Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality; North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources; South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control; and Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation) and 17 local programs (City of Huntsville Division of Natural Resources, AL; Jefferson County Department of Health, AL; Broward County Environmental Protection and Growth Management Department, FL; City of Jacksonville Environmental Quality Division, FL; Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission, FL; Miami-Dade County Air Quality Management Division, FL; Orange County Environmental Protection Division, FL; Palm Beach County Health Department, FL; Pinellas County Parks and Conservation Resources, FL; Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District, KY; Forsyth County Environmental Affairs Department, NC; Mecklenburg County Land Use and Environmental Services Agency, NC; Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency, NC; Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau, TN; Shelby County Health Department, TN; Knox County Department of Air Quality Management, TN; and Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County Public Health Department, TN). The 25 evaluations were conducted to assess the agencies' Fiscal Year 2011 performance under the grants awarded by EPA under authority of section 105 of the Clean Air Act. EPA Region 4 has prepared reports for each agency identified above and these reports are now available for public inspection.
The reports may be examined at the EPA's Region 4 office, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, in the Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
Gwendolyn Graf (404) 562-9289 for information concerning the states and local agencies of Alabama; Tennessee and the state agency of South Carolina; Angela Isom (404) 562-9092 for the state and local agencies of Florida; Mary Echols (404) 562-9053 for the state agency of Georgia; and Shantel Shelmon (404) 562-9817 for the state and local agencies of North Carolina and Kentucky and the state agency of Mississippi. They may be contacted at the Region 4 address mentioned in the previous section of this notice.
The following items have been deleted from the list of Consent Agenda items scheduled for consideration at the Thursday, January 28, 2016, Open Meeting and previously listed in the Commission's Notice of January 21, 2016. Items 5 through 7 have been adopted by the Commission.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. In your request, include a description of the accommodation you will need and a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to:
Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from the Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at
For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the Internet. To purchase these services, call (703) 993-3100 or go to
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 4556 Meritor Savings Bank, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Meritor Savings Bank (Receivership Estate). The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective February 01, 2016 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10483 Mountain National Bank, Sevierville, Tennessee (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Mountain National Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective February 1, 2016, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged,
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and Request for Comment.
The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the survey collection instruments for a proposed new collection of information, a Small Business Lending Survey of banks that is proposed to be fielded in June 2016. On October 7, 2015, the FDIC published a notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before March 7, 2016.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments by any of the following methods. All comments should reference “FDIC Small Business Lending Survey”:
•
•
•
•
Interested members of the public may obtain a copy of the survey and related instructions by clicking on the link for the
The FDIC proposes to establish the following collection of information:
1,500 respondents with assets less than $1 billion.
500 respondents with assets of $1 billion or greater.
3 hours per respondent with assets less than $1 billion.
6 hours per respondent with assets of $1 billion or greater.
3 hours × 1,500 respondents = 4,500 hours
6 hours × 500 respondents = 3,000 hours.
Total: 7,500 hours.
Small businesses are an important component of the U.S. economy. According to the Small Business Administration, small firms accounted for almost half of private-sector employment and 63 percent of net new jobs between mid-1993 and 2013.
Due to the importance of small businesses to the U.S. economy and the importance of bank lending to small businesses, the proposed FDIC Small Business Lending Survey, which surveys banks, will provide important data to complement existing sources of data on small business lending. The proposed survey data will not duplicate existing sources of data and will provide additional insight into many aspects of small business lending.
The FDIC Small Business Lending Survey, proposed to begin data collection in June 2016, is designed to yield heretofore unavailable nationally representative estimates on the volume and details of small business loans extended by FDIC-insured banks. In addition, the survey will provide new information on banks' perceived competition and market area for small business lending. The survey will yield nationally representative estimates of small business lending by banks of several different asset size categories and with different levels of urban or rural presence.
In addition to the questions on small business lending, the new survey will include some questions related to consumer transaction accounts that are directly responsive to the mandate in Section 7 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Conforming Amendments Act of 2005 (“Reform Act”) (Pub. L. 109-173), which calls for the FDIC to conduct ongoing surveys “on efforts by insured depository institutions to bring those individuals and families who have rarely, if ever, held a checking account, a savings account or other type of transaction or check cashing account at an insured depository institution (hereafter in this section referred to as the `unbanked') into the conventional finance system.” Section 7 of the Reform Act further instructs the FDIC to consider several factors in its conduct of the surveys, including: “What cultural, language and identification issues as well as transaction costs appear to most prevent `unbanked' individuals from establishing conventional accounts.”
The consumer account-focused questions are designed to provide a factual basis for examining identification issues and transaction costs related to establishing mainstream transaction accounts at banks. These consumer account-focused questions have been added to the Small Business Lending Survey in lieu of fielding a separate second survey to respond to the Congressional mandate. The reason for the consolidation of these efforts is to reduce the burden on banks and increase the participation rate relative to fielding two separate surveys.
On October 7, 2015 (80 FR 60678), the FDIC issued a request for comment on a proposed new collection of information, a Small Business Lending Survey of banks that is proposed to be
One commenter suggested that the FDIC separate the proposed survey into two separate surveys, one on small business lending and one on consumer bank accounts, in order to encourage participation, reduce the burden on respondents and ensure the accuracy of information collected regarding consumer bank accounts. To ensure accurate responses and minimize the effort necessary to gather information needed for responses, the FDIC conducted three rounds of cognitive testing of the survey questions across the U.S. in 10 states with 40 banks of different sizes and that serve different types of market areas. The cognitive testing was conducted to ensure that the survey questions are clearly worded and understood by bank personnel, and primarily draw on expert knowledge or data available in existing internal reports. To ensure that the appropriate bank personnel respond to the survey questions for which they have subject-matter expertise, the FDIC has also organized the questions into distinct sections that can be accessed independently and answered by different bank personnel. In addition, the section containing the consumer bank account questions has been renamed “Information about Consumer Bank Accounts” to more clearly indicate its focus. Fielding two separate surveys at about the same time may decrease participation for both surveys, and may increase the challenge of communicating with banks about the surveys, resulting in increased confusion.
One commenter recommended that the FDIC accurately explain the goal of the consumer bank account questions. The FDIC has revised the introduction to the “Information about Consumer Bank Accounts” section that explains the purpose of the consumer bank account questions. Additionally, the FDIC will transmit the survey to respondent banks with a cover letter, which will include an overview of the survey and a discussion of the motivation for each section.
One commenter queried whether the question regarding “network branded general purpose reloadable prepaid cards” is intended to identify the universe of alternatives to full-service checking accounts offered by insured depository institutions, and, more specifically, expressed concern regarding the lack of definition of “network branded general purpose reloadable prepaid cards.” The FDIC intends this question to inquire about a specific type of card-based product offered by some insured depository institutions, not the universe of alternatives to full-service checking accounts. This question has been edited to refer specifically to “a Visa or MasterCard branded general purpose reloadable (GPR) prepaid card that your bank markets directly to consumers in your market area.” This revision is responsive to feedback that the FDIC received from the three rounds of cognitive testing with banks of different sizes and that serve different types of markets.
One commenter recommended that two questions about bank applicant screening processes, specifically inquiring whether prior account closure due to account mismanagement or applicant fraud on a prior account would make an applicant ineligible to open a basic, entry-level consumer checking account, be changed from accepting only “yes” and “no” responses to also including a third potential response of “it depends.” This commenter also suggested the addition of a follow-up question asking whether the bank offers an alternative account to those ineligible for the standard checking account. The FDIC has removed from the survey the question regarding applicant fraud on a prior account. The question regarding account mismanagement has been revised to include a third response, that applicants in this situation would be “eligible to open a second-chance account or an account with more limited features.” The additional answer was developed in response to feedback from cognitive testing and is responsive to the suggestion offered here by the commenter.
One commenter cautioned that the FDIC should be mindful of the complexity and range of reasons why unbanked and under banked consumers do not fully engage with the banking system. This commenter expressed concern that the proposed consumer account questions in the survey focus on the costs of bank accounts and prior account mismanagement as impediments to opening bank accounts when studies suggest that the primary reasons for consumers not having an account are not having enough money or not wanting or needing an account. This commenter also cautioned that regulations may impede banks' ability to offer consumer products that might encourage greater participation within the banking system.
The FDIC is interested in the full range of reasons why some consumers are unbanked. To that end, the FDIC has asked, in each biennial Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households, for all the reasons that households are unbanked. The consumer banking section of this survey is intended, in large part, to provide a factual context for interpreting some of the results of other FDIC research efforts into consumer engagement with financial services and institutions. The consumer bank account questions in this survey represent one prong in a multi-pronged approach to understanding how unbanked and lower-income consumers make decisions about using financial services, how banks engage with those consumers through the development of products and services and outreach programs, and contextual factors that influence the choices of both consumers and banks.
One commenter expressed concern regarding the level of effort required of banks, especially community banks, to respond to the survey. The FDIC has made a concerted effort to streamline the survey and reduce the burden associated with providing responses. This effort included three rounds of cognitive testing of the survey questions with banks of different sizes and that serve different types of market areas to ensure that the survey will capture useful information while minimizing response burden. In response to feedback from the cognitive testing, the FDIC has significantly reduced the number of questions in the survey, retaining only questions that rely on expert knowledge and do not require the gathering of data, or questions that require data that can be provided from core data systems or from existing internal reports. Additionally, the FDIC has also reduced the number of question that will be answered by banks with less than $1 billion in assets. In addition, the FDIC has revised the survey to include screener questions that will also reduce the number of questions for banks with $1 billion or more in assets whose systems do not collect specific information. The revised survey is now significantly shorter for banks of all sizes.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use
The FDIC will consider all comments to determine the extent to which the survey instruments should be modified prior to submission to OMB for review and approval. After the comment period closes, comments will be summarized and included in the FDIC's request to OMB for approval of the collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10303 Progress Bank of Florida, Tampa, Florida (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Progress Bank of Florida (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective February 1, 2016, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
Pursuant to the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. 40101
In carrying out its broad responsibilities under the Shipping Act with respect to ocean common carriers, U.S. ports, marine terminal operators, ocean transportation intermediaries and the American exporters and importers they serve, the Commission has developed an understanding of and an expertise in evaluating the U.S. international supply chain. As the premier competition agency with oversight responsibilities for the United States foreign ocean transportation system, the Commission has extensive experience with global maritime and marine terminal innovation and efficiency issues.
Maintaining the effectiveness and reliability of America's global supply chain is critically important to the Nation's continued economic vitality. Approximately $980 billion of containerized ocean commerce moves through U.S. ports annually. Unfortunately, congestion and related bottlenecks at ports and other points in the Nation's supply chain have become a serious risk to the growth of the U.S. economy, job growth, and to our Nation's competitive position in the world. Past congestion at major U.S. ports has highlighted the impact of congestion on the U.S. economy. As a result, the U.S. economy suffered billions of dollars in losses to the supply chain.
In addition, congestion problems contributed to hundreds of millions of dollars in losses for U.S. agricultural exporters including poultry and meat farmers. Perishable fruit and vegetable exporters suffered when their cargo was not loaded onto ships and sent overseas within specific time frames.
Although the congestion crisis has receded, unresolved supply chain problems that could produce new challenges remain.
In response to those events, and the desire of affected parties to find ways to prevent or mitigate similar future occurrences, the Commission hosted four regional port forums during the fall of 2014, in San Pedro, CA (West Coast Port Forum), Baltimore, MD (Mid-Atlantic and Northeast Port Forum), Charleston, SC (South Atlantic Port Forum) and New Orleans, LA (Gulf Coast Port Forum). The forums brought together port officials, ocean carriers, trucking and warehousing service providers, beneficial cargo owners, marine terminal operators, stevedoring companies, ocean transportation intermediaries, and port labor to discuss and offer ideas to address port congestion. The comments and suggestions offered at those forums were summarized and developed in an FMC report entitled “
The report identified six major themes from the port forums: Investment and planning; chassis availability and related issues; port drayage and truck turn times; extended gate hours, PierPASS, and congestion pricing; vessel and terminal operations; and supply chain planning, collaboration, and communication. Some of these topics involve longer-term issues such as investment and planning. Others focus on short and medium-term concerns. All of them, however, are at the heart of current efforts by various groups to develop the flexible, resilient and reliable systems necessary for ensuring well-functioning international supply chains.
The Commission has also advanced port and marine terminal efforts to improve supply chain efficiency by expediting the implementation of port and terminal amendments aimed at enhancing the efficient flow of cargo. For example, several port and marine terminal operator agreements on file with the Commission that cover the Pacific Coast ports, commit the parties to exploring measures for achieving improvements with regard to congestion, efficiency, fluidity, and other operational conditions.*
* The Los Angeles and Long Beach Port Infrastructure and Environmental Programs Cooperative Working Agreement (FMC No. 201219), West Coast MTO Agreement (FMC No. 201143), Pacific Ports Operational Improvements Agreement (FMC No. 201227), Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association (FMC No. 202-011284), and Los Angeles/Long Beach Port Terminal Operator Administrative and Implementation Agreement (FMC No. 201178).
Given the economic importance of reliable port and terminal operations to the effectiveness of the United States international supply chain, and the Commission's mandate to ensure an efficient and economic transportation system for its ocean commerce, the Commission has a clear and compelling
By The Commission.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 29, 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 St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
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 February 23, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 29, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board or Federal Reserve) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve of and assign OMB control 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 Paperwork Reduction Act 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 control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 5, 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 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 collections, which are being handled under this delegated authority, have received initial Board approval and are hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collections, 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.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
As these data are collected as part of the supervisory process, they are subject to confidential treatment under exemption 8 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)). In addition, commercial and financial information contained in these information collections may be exempt from disclosure under exemption 4 of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)), if disclosure would likely have the effect of (1) impairing the government's ability to obtain the necessary information in the future, or (2) causing substantial harm to the competitive position of the respondent. Such exemptions would be made on a case-by-case basis.
The Capital Assessments and Stress Testing information collection consists of the FR Y-14A, Q, and M reports. The semi-annual FR Y-14A collects information on the stress tests conducted by BHCs, including quantitative projections of balance sheet, income, losses, and capital across a range of macroeconomic scenarios, and qualitative information on methodologies used to develop internal projections of capital across scenarios.
6.
7.
8.
FR Y-6: Section 5(c) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1844(c)); sections 8(a) and 13(a) of the IBA (12 U.S.C. 3106 and 3108(a)); sections 11(a)(1), 25, and 25A of the Federal Reserve Act (FRA) (12 U.S.C. 248(a), 602, and 611a); and sections 113, 312, 618, and 809 of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5361, 5412, 1850a(c)(1), and 5468(b)(1)), section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5365), and section 252.153(b)(2) of Regulation YY (12 CFR 252.153(b)(2)).
FR Y-7: Sections 8(a) and 13(a) of the IBA (12 U.S.C. 3106(a) and 3108(a)) and sections 113, 312, 618, and 809 of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5361, 5412, 1850a(c)(1), and 5468(b)(1), respectively).
FR Y-10 and FR Y-10E: Sections 4(k) and 5(c)(1)(A) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(k), 1844(c)(1)(A)), section 8(a) of the IBA (12 U.S.C. 3106(a)), sections 11(a)(1), 25(7), and 25A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248(a)(1), 321, 601, 602, 611a, 615, and 625), and sections 113, 312, 618, and 809 of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5361, 5412, 1850a(c)(1), and 5468(b)(1), respectively).
The data collected in the FR Y-6, FR Y-7, FR Y-10, and FR Y-10E are not considered confidential. With regard to information that a banking organization may deem confidential, the institution may request confidential treatment of such information under one or more of the exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552). The most likely case for confidential treatment will be based on FOIA exemption 4, which permits an agency to exempt from disclosure “trade secrets
The FR Y-7 is an annual information collection submitted by qualifying FBOs to update their financial and organizational information with the Federal Reserve. The FR Y-7 collects financial, organizational, and managerial information. The Federal Reserve uses information to assess an FBO's ability to be a continuing source of strength to its U.S. operations, and to determine compliance with U.S. laws and regulations.
The FR Y-10 is an event-generated information collection submitted by FBOs; top-tier holding companies; security holding companies as authorized under Section 618 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 1850a(c)(1)); state member banks unaffiliated with a BHC; Edge Act and agreement corporations that are not controlled by a member bank, a domestic BHC, or a FBO; and nationally chartered banks that are not controlled by a BHC (with regard to their foreign investments only) to capture changes in their regulated investments and activities. The Federal Reserve uses the data to monitor structure information on subsidiaries and regulated investments of these entities engaged in banking and nonbanking activities. The FR Y-10E is a free-form supplement that may be used to collect additional structural information deemed to be critical and needed in an expedited manner.
9.
10.
With regard to the FR Y-14 series of reports, the IHC would be required to complete the FR Y-14 reports in the same manner as a BHC, and would be subject to requirements to report historical data with respect to its U.S. bank and nonbank operations. The reporting instructions provide IHCs with the submission dates for each of the FR Y-14 reports, including the onboarding filing delays that apply to certain schedules, and the requirements for reporting historical data for the FR Y-14Q Retail and PPNR schedules. IHCs will also receive this information in an onboarding memo. The historical data are necessary for the Board to perform a supervisory assessment of the capital plans of IHCs and to conduct supervisory stress tests. The Federal Reserve expects to address requirements for the Market Shock exercise, as they would apply to IHCs with significant trading activity, in a separate proposal.
However, many IHCs may have difficulty reporting historical data prior to formation of the IHC because of the structural reorganizations associated with complying with the IHC requirement. In addition, the ability of IHCs to report historical data may differ because compliance burdens may vary in complexity across IHCs. The Federal Reserve invites comment on the ability of IHCs to report historical data, including, but not limited to
• a description, with supporting detail, of any challenges that IHCs may face in providing historical data;
• specific compliance burdens for IHCs, such as issues related to systems integration or data retention policies; and
• whether an IHC would be able to report historical data if granted an extension of time, and if so, how much additional time would be needed.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of
Written comments must be received on or before April 5, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2016-0019 by any of the following methods:
All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 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. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Performance Monitoring of “Working with Publicly Funded Health Centers to Reduce Teen Pregnancy among Youth from Vulnerable Populations”—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In 2014, the US rate of 24.2 births per 1,000 women aged 15-19 was the highest of all Western industrialized countries. Access to reproductive health services and the most effective types of contraception have been shown to reduce the likelihood that teens become pregnant. Nevertheless, reviews of recent research and teen pregnancy prevention projects, including a collaborative project implemented by CDC and the HHS Office of Adolescent Health (2010-2015), demonstrate that many health centers serving adolescents do not engage in youth-friendly best practices that may enhance access to care and to the most effective types of contraception. Furthermore, youth at highest risk of experiencing a teen pregnancy are often not connected to the reproductive health care that they need, even when they are part of a population that is known to be at high risk for a teen pregnancy. Significant racial, ethnic and geographic disparities in teen birth rates persist and continue to be a focus of public health efforts.
To address these challenges, CDC is providing funding to three organizations to strengthen partnerships and processes that improve reproductive health services for teens. CDC's awardees will work with approximately 35 publicly funded health centers to implement organizational changes and provider training based on best practices in adolescent reproductive health care. In addition, awardees will work with approximately 30 youth-serving organizations (YSO) to provide staff training and develop systematic approaches to identifying youth who are at risk for a teen pregnancy and referring those youth to reproductive health care services. Finally, awardees will develop communication campaigns that increase awareness of the partner health centers' services for teens. Activities are expected to result in changes to health center and YSO partners' policies, to staff practices, and to youth health care seeking and teen pregnancy prevention behaviors.
Although similar activities have been implemented in a variety of teen pregnancy prevention projects, the proposed combination of efforts, and the incorporation of youth-friendly best practices, have not been previously implemented or evaluated. CDC therefore plans to collect information needed to assess these efforts. Information will be collected from the CDC awardees, the health center and YSO partner organizations, and the youth served by the health center partner organizations. CDC will use the information to determine the types of training and technical assistance that are needed, to monitor whether awardees meet objectives related to health center and YSO partners' policies and staff practices, to support a data-driven quality improvement process for adolescent sexual and reproductive health care services and referrals, and to assess whether the project model was effective in increasing the utilization of services by youth.
OMB approval is requested for three years. Participation in the organizational
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on the proposed revision of the information collection project entitled
Written comments must be received on or before April 5, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2016-0018 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information
National Environmental Assessment Reporting System (NEARS), formerly the National Voluntary Environmental Assessment Information System (NVEAIS; OMB Control No. 0920-0980; expiration date 08/31/2016)—Revision—National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Since 2014, environmental factor data associated with foodborne outbreaks have been reported to the National Voluntary Environmental Assessment Information System (NVEAIS). CDC intends to seek a three-year Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to revise the NVEAIS, hereafter referred to as the National Environmental Assessment Reporting System (NEARS). In 2015, it was recommended that NVEAIS be renamed as NEARS. This name change will be an enhancement of the current surveillance system and was recommended by CDC leadership, and other food safety partners who desired to simplify and improve the name.
The goal of NEARS remains to collect data on foodborne illness outbreaks and environmental assessments routinely conducted by local, state, federal, territorial, or tribal food safety programs during outbreak investigations. The data reported through this surveillance system provides timely data on the causes of outbreaks, including environmental factors associated with outbreaks, which are essential to environmental public health regulators' efforts to respond more effectively to outbreaks and prevent future, similar outbreaks.
NEARS was developed by the Environmental Health Specialists Network (EHS-Net), a collaborative network of CDC, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and local, state, territorial, and tribal food safety programs. NEARS is designed to link to CDC's National Outbreak Reporting System (NORS, under the National Disease Surveillance Program II—Disease Summaries; OMB Control No. 0920-0004; expiration date 10/31/2017), a disease outbreak surveillance system for enteric diseases transmitted by food.
When linked, NEARS and NORS data provide opportunities to strengthen the robustness of outbreak data reported to CDC. The foodborne outbreak environmental assessment data reported to NEARS will be used to characterize data on food vehicles and monitor trends; identify contributing factors and their environmental antecedents; generate hypotheses, guide planning, and implementation; evaluate food safety programs, and ultimately assist to prevent future outbreaks. Collectively, these data play a vital role in improving the food safety system, strengthening the robustness of outbreak data reported to CDC.
The first type of NEARS respondent is food safety program officials. Although not a requirement, food safety program personnel participating in NEARS will be encouraged to take two trainings: NEARS food safety program personnel training and NEARS e-learning. The former will train food safety personnel on identifying environmental factors, logging in and entering data into the web-based NEARS data entry system, and troubleshooting problems. The latter is an e-Learning course on how to use a systems approach in foodborne illness outbreak environmental assessments. It is suggested that respondents take this training one time, for a total of 10 hours.
Next, for each outbreak, one official from each participating program will spend about one hour to make establishment observations, 30 minutes to record environmental assessment data and 30 minutes to report environmental assessment data into the NEARS web-based system. Officials will not report on their programs or personnel. Food safety programs are typically located in public health or agriculture agencies. There are approximately 3,000 such agencies in the United States.
It is not possible to determine exactly how many outbreaks will occur in the future, nor where they will occur. However, based on existing data, we estimate a maximum of 1,400 foodborne illness outbreaks will occur annually. Only programs in the jurisdictions in which these outbreaks occur would voluntarily report to NEARS. Thus, not every program will respond every year. We assume each outbreak will occur in a different jurisdiction.
The second type of NEARS respondent is managers of retail establishments. The manager interview will be conducted at each establishment associated with an outbreak. Most outbreaks are associated with only one establishment. We estimate that a maximum average of four managers at each establishment will be interviewed per outbreak. Each interview will take about 20 minutes.
The total estimated annual burden is 20,067 hours, an increase of 14,000 hours over the previously approved 6,067. This increase in requested burden hours is due to the addition of the NEARS e-learning training opportunity. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on a proposed revision of the information collection project entitled “
Written comments must be received on or before April 5, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2016-0017 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 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. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant (OMB Control No. 0920-0106, exp. 8/31/2016)—Revision—Office for State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support (OSTLTS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The management of the Preventive Health and Health Services (PHHS) Block Grant program has transitioned from the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion to the Office for State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support (OSTLTS). The Program continues to provide awardees with a source of flexible funding for health promotion and disease prevention programs. Currently, 61 awardees (50 states, the District of Columbia, two American Indian Tribes, and eight U.S. territories) receive Block Grants to address locally-defined public health needs in innovative ways. Block Grants allow awardees to prioritize the use of funds and to fill funding gaps in programs that deal with the leading causes of death and disability. Block
CDC currently collects information from Block Grant awardees to monitor their objectives and activities (Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant, OMB No. 0920-0106, exp. 8/31/2016). Each awardee is required to submit an annual application for funding (Work Plan) that describes its objectives and the populations to be addressed, and an Annual Report that describes activities, progress toward objectives, and Success Stories which highlight the improvements Block Grant programs have made and the value of program activities. Information is submitted electronically through the web-based Block Grant Information Management System (BGMIS).
CDC PHHS Block Grant program has benefited from this system by efficiently collecting mandated information in a format that allows data to be easily retrieved in standardized reports. The electronic format verifies completeness of data at data entry prior to submission to CDC, reducing the number of re-submissions that are required to provide concise and complete information.
The Work Plan and Annual Report are designed to help Block Grant awardees attain their goals and to meet reporting requirements specified in the program's authorizing legislation. Each Work Plan objective is defined in SMART format (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-based), and includes a specified start date and end date. Block Grant activities adhere to the Healthy People (HP) framework established by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The current version of the BGMIS associates each awardee-defined activity with a specific HP National Objective, and identifies the location where funds are applied. Although there are no substantive changes to the information collected (Attachment 4A), the Work Plan guidance document for users (Attachments 4B) has been updated to improve their usability and the clarity of instructions provided to BGMIS users. These changes are summarized in Attachments 4C.
There are no changes to the number of Block Grant awardees (respondents), or the estimated burden per response for the Work Plan or the Annual Report. At this time, the BGMIS does not collect data related to performance measures, but a future information collection request may outline additional reporting requirements related to performance measures.
The PHHS Block Grant program must continue to collect data in order to remain in compliance with legislative mandates. The system allows CDC and Grantees to measure performance, identifying the extent to which objectives were met and identifying the most highly successful program interventions. CDC requests OMB approval to continue the Block Grant information collection for three years. CDC will continue to use the BGMIS to monitor awardee progress, identify activities and personnel supported with Block Grant funding, conduct compliance reviews of Block Grant awardees, and promote the use of evidence-based guidelines and interventions. There are no changes to the number of respondents or the estimated annual burden per respondent. The Work Plan and the Annual Report will be submitted annually. The estimated burden per response for the Work Plan is 20 hours and the estimated burden per response for the Annual Report is 15 hours.
Participation in this information collection is required for Block Grant awardees. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. Awardees continue to submit Success Stories with their Annual Progress reports through BGMIS, without changes.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by April 5, 2016.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
2.
This demonstration would help assure that payments for home health services are appropriate before the claims are paid, thereby preventing fraud, waste, and abuse. As part of this demonstration, we propose performing prior authorization before processing claims for home health services in: Florida, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, and Massachusetts. We would establish a prior authorization procedure that is similar to the Prior Authorization of Power Mobility Device (PMD) Demonstration, which was implemented by CMS in 2012. This demonstration would also follow and adopt prior authorization processes that currently exist in other health care programs such as TRICARE, certain state Medicaid programs, and in private insurance.
The information required under this collection is requested by Medicare contractors to determine proper payment or if there is a suspicion of fraud. Medicare contractors will request the information from HHA providers submitting claims for payment from the Medicare program in advance to determine appropriate payment.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by April 5, 2016.
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions:
OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is publishing this notice of petitions received under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the Program), as required by Section 2112(b)(2) of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended. While the Secretary of Health and Human Services is named as the respondent in all proceedings brought by the filing of petitions for compensation under the Program, the United States Court of Federal Claims is charged by statute with responsibility for considering and acting upon the petitions.
For information about requirements for filing petitions, and the Program in general, contact the Clerk, United States Court of Federal Claims, 717 Madison Place NW., Washington, DC 20005, (202) 357-6400. For information on HRSA's role in the Program, contact the Director, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11C-26, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-6593, or visit our Web site at:
The Program provides a system of no-fault compensation for certain individuals who have been injured by specified childhood vaccines. Subtitle 2 of Title XXI of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10
A petition may be filed with respect to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from vaccines described in the Vaccine Injury Table (the Table) set forth at 42 CFR 100.3. This Table lists for each covered childhood vaccine the conditions that may lead to compensation and, for each condition, the time period for occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration. Compensation may also be awarded for conditions not listed in the Table and for conditions that are manifested outside the time periods specified in the Table, but only if the petitioner shows that the condition was caused by one of the listed vaccines.
Section 2112(b)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-12(b)(2), requires that “[w]ithin 30 days after the Secretary receives service of any petition filed under section 2111 the Secretary shall publish notice of such petition in the
Section 2112(b)(2) also provides that the special master “shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to submit relevant, written information” relating to the following:
1. The existence of evidence “that there is not a preponderance of the evidence that the illness, disability, injury, condition, or death described in the petition is due to factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine described in the petition,” and
2. Any allegation in a petition that the petitioner either:
a. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition not set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table but which was caused by” one of the vaccines referred to in the Table, or
b. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or significant aggravation of which did not occur within the time period set forth in the Table but which was caused by a vaccine” referred to in the Table.
In accordance with Section 2112(b)(2), all interested persons may submit written information relevant to the issues described above in the case of the petitions listed below. Any person choosing to do so should file an original and three (3) copies of the information with the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims at the address listed above (under the heading “For Further Information Contact”), with a copy to HRSA addressed to Director, Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Healthcare Systems Bureau, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11C-26, Rockville, MD 20857. The Court's caption (Petitioner's Name v. Secretary of Health and Human Services) and the docket number assigned to the petition should be used as the caption for the written submission. Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, related to paperwork reduction, does not apply to information required for purposes of carrying out the Program.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of Minority Health.
Notice; correction.
The meeting of the Advisory Committee on Minority Health (ACMH) scheduled for January 28 and 29, 2016, is cancelled due to inclement weather. This meeting will be rescheduled at a future date.
Dr. Minh Wendt, Designated Federal Officer, ACMH; Tower Building, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 600, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Phone: 240-453-8222. Fax: 240-453-8223. Email:
In the
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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project contact: Dr. Kristina Thayer, Director of the Office of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of National Toxicology Program, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop K2-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, or call non-toll-free number (919) 541-5021, or Email your request, including your address, to:
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 620.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments or request more information on the proposed project contact: David Sharlip, Office of Administrative and Management Analysis Services,, National Library of Medicine, Building 38A, Room B2N12, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20894, or call non-toll-free number (301) 402-9680, or Email your request, including your address to:
NLM has become an international leader in health informatics research and development, especially in consumer health informatics. As a result, NLM needs to remain contemporary in consumer health informatics research by utilizing research methods that yield a better understanding of the predictors of consumer satisfaction. Without ongoing insights into the predictors of consumer satisfaction, NLM will lack the research findings to make evidence-based changes in the content, design and editorial management of its consumer Web sites and will not optimally serve the public.
Public libraries have been identified as a key resource for public information about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), which took full effect on October 1, 2013. A national anonymous survey of library staff will help us better understand the challenges and successes of information provision in this critical area of high information need. Research and funding into the challenges of health information in public libraries is, at present, almost nonexistent. In the present environment of health insurance reform and presumption of informed consumer choice, this is a critical knowledge gap. Information collection from library workers will supply much-needed feedback on the specific areas of challenge for information provision by public libraries. The results of this study will be used by the Principal Investigators' home institutions—the University of Wisconsin-Madison, an institution of higher education preparing future library workers, and the Specialized Information Services division of the National Library of Medicine—to inform preparation of outreach and training materials as well as advising other organizations and institutions providing PPACA information provision assistance to public libraries (
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 390.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials and Translational Research Advisory Committee, March 09, 2016, 11:00 a.m. to March 09, 2016, 01:00 p.m., National Cancer Institute, Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD, 20850 which was published in the
The meeting notice is amended to change the location of the meeting from the National Cancer Institute, Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD, 20850 to the National Institutes of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD, 20892, Building 31, C-Wing, 6th Floor, Room 10. The meeting is open to the public.
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.
In accordance with Title 41 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Section 102-3.65(a), notice is hereby given that the Charter for the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Advisory Council was renewed for an additional two-year period on February 7, 2016.
It is determined that the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Advisory Council is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the National Institutes of Health by law, and that these duties can best be performed through the advice and counsel of this group.
Inquiries may be directed to Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 1000, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (Mail code 4875), Telephone (301) 496-2123, or
Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, February 24, 2016, 10:00 a.m. to February 24, 2016, 5:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, which was published in the
The meeting is cancelled due to the reassignment of applications.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a revision to the following collection of information: 1625-0039, Declaration of Inspection Before Transfer of Liquid in Bulk. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before March 7, 2016.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2015-0909] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1)
(2)
(3)
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at
Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) the practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2015-0909], and must be received by March 7, 2016.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (80 FR 64429, October 23, 2015) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.
1.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
The Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) statute gives HUD authority to establish waivers and alternative requirements. This notice advises that HUD is providing alternative requirements for statutory limits on the use of public housing units in response to plans submitted by the San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA) to preserve available affordable housing in its jurisdiction and use unoccupied public housing units to temporarily house former public housing families whose units are undergoing renovations.
Thomas R. Davis, Director of the Office of Recapitalization, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-7000; telephone number 202-708-0001 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired persons may access these numbers through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).
The RAD statute (Pub. L. 112-55, approved November 18, 2011, as amended) gives HUD authority to waive or specify alternative requirements for, among other things, provisions of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (the 1937 Act). In order to utilize this authority, the RAD statute requires HUD to publish by notice in the
In November of 2015, the SFHA closed on transactions involving 14 public housing properties using a combination of RAD and Section 8. Plans for the 14 projects include in-place rehabilitation requiring temporary relocation of the 1,425 households. To accomplish this large-scale temporary relocation, the SFHA will utilize a number of relocation options. In addition to traditional relocation options, the SFHA has asked HUD for the ability to use, during rehabilitation after conversion, 58 public housing units as temporary relocation housing for former public housing residents of projects that receive assistance converted pursuant to RAD.
Accordingly, HUD is specifying alternative requirements for sections 9(d)(3)(A) and (B) of the 1937 Act (42 U.S.C. 1437g(d)(3)(A) and (B)). Subject to certain conditions that the SFHA has agreed to follow, HUD is allowing the SFHA to follow its stated relocation plans.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in
Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, and suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to: Ms. Theresa M. Ritta, Chief Real Property Branch, the Department of Health and Human Services, Room 5B-17, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.
For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of request for nominations.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA), the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) requests nominations of individuals to serve on the Advisory Board for Exceptional Children (Advisory Board). There are two positions available. The BIE will consider nominations received in response to this request for nominations, as well as other sources. The
Please submit nominations by March 7, 2016.
Please submit nominations to Ms. Sue Bement, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Bureau of Indian Education, Division of Performance and Accountability, 1011 Indian School Road NW., Suite 332, Albuquerque, NM 87104, Telephone (505) 563-5274, or Fax to (505) 563-5281.
Contact Ms. Sue Bement, DFO, at the above listed address and telephone number.
The Advisory Board was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463. The following provides information about the Committee, the membership and the nomination process.
(a) Members of the Advisory Board will provide guidance, advice and recommendations with respect to special education and related services for children with disabilities in BIE-funded schools in accordance with the requirements of IDEA;
(b) The Advisory Board will:
(1) Provide advice and recommendations for the coordination of services within the BIE and with other local, State and Federal agencies;
(2) Provide advice and recommendations on a broad range of policy issues dealing with the provision of educational services to American Indian children with disabilities;
(3) Serve as advocates for American Indian students with special education needs by providing advice and recommendations regarding best practices, effective program coordination strategies, and recommendations for improved educational programming;
(4) Provide advice and recommendations for the preparation of information required to be submitted to the Secretary of Education under 20 U.S.C. 1411 (h)(2);
(5) Provide advice and recommend policies concerning effective inter/intra agency collaboration, including modifications to regulations, and the elimination of barriers to inter- and intra-agency programs and activities; and
(6) Will report and direct all correspondence to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs through the Director, BIE with a courtesy copy to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO).
(a) Pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 1411(h)(6), the Advisory Board will be composed of up to 15 individuals involved in or concerned with the education and provision of services to Indian infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities. The Advisory Board composition will reflect a broad range of viewpoints and will include at least one member representing each of the following interests: Indians with disabilities; teachers of children with disabilities; Indian parents or guardians of children with disabilities; service providers, state education officials; local education officials; state interagency coordinating councils (for states having Indian reservations); tribal representatives or tribal organization representatives; and other members representing the various divisions and entities of the BIE.
(b) The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs may provide the Secretary of the Interior recommendations for the chairperson; however, the chairperson and other Advisory Board members will be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Advisory Board members shall serve staggered terms of two years or three years from the date of their appointment.
(a) Members of the Advisory Board will not receive compensation, but will be reimbursed for travel, including subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in Government Service under 5 U.S.C. 5703.
(b) A member may not participate in matters that will directly affect, or appear to affect, the financial interests of the member or the member's spouse or minor children, unless authorized by the appropriate ethics official. Compensation from employment does not constitute a financial interest of the member so long as the matter before the committee will not have a special or distinct effect on the member or the member's employer, other than as part of a class. The provisions of this paragraph do not affect any other statutory or regulatory ethical obligations to which a member may be subject.
(c) The Advisory Board meets at least twice a year, budget permitting, but additional meetings may be held as deemed necessary by the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs or the DFO.
(d) All Advisory Board meetings are open to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act regulations.
(a) Nominations are requested from individuals, organizations, and federally recognized tribes, as well as from State Directors of Special Education (within the 23 states in which BIE-funded schools are located) concerned with the education of Indian children with disabilities as described above.
(b) Nominees should have expertise and knowledge of the issues and/or needs of American Indian children with disabilities. Such knowledge and expertise are needed to provide advice and recommendations to the BIE regarding the needs of American Indian children with disabilities.
(c) A summary of the candidates' qualifications (résumé or curriculum vitae) must be included with the nomination application, which can be found on the Bureau of Indian Education Web site. Nominees must have the ability to attend Advisory Board meetings, carry out Advisory Board assignments, participate in teleconference calls, and work in groups.
(d) The Department of the Interior is committed to equal opportunities in the workplace and seeks diverse Committee membership, which is bound by Indian Preference Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 472).
If you wish to nominate someone for appointment to the Advisory Board, please do not make the nomination until the person has agreed to have his or her name submitted to the BIE for this purpose.
Please fill out the application form completely and include a copy of the nominee's resume or curriculum vitae. The membership nomination form can be found on the BIE Web site at
This collection of information is authorized by OMB Control Number 1076-0179, “Solicitation of Nominations for the Advisory Board for Exceptional Children.”
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) is announcing that the Advisory Board for Exceptional Children (Advisory Board) will hold its next meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The purpose of the meeting is to meet the mandates of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA) for Indian children with disabilities.
The Advisory Board will meet on Thursday, March 17, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday, March 18, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Local Time.
The meetings will be held at the Manual Lujan, Jr. Building, Room 234, 1011 Indian School Road NW., Albuquerque, NM 87104.
Ms. Sue Bement, Designated Federal Officer, Bureau of Indian Education, Albuquerque Service Center, Division of Performance and Accountability, 1011 Indian School Road NW., Suite 332, Albuquerque, NM 87104; telephone number (505) 563-5274.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, BIE is announcing that the Advisory Board will hold its next meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The Advisory Board was established under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (20 U.S.C. 1400
The following items will be on the agenda:
* During the March 18, 2016, meeting, time has been set aside for public comment via conference call from 1:30—2:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The call-in information is:
Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Framework Agreement for Early Restoration Addressing Injuries Resulting from the
Nanciann Regalado, at 404-679-4161.
On or about April 20, 2010, the mobile offshore drilling unit
Under the Oil Pollution Act 1990 (OPA; 33 U.S.C. 2701
The Trustees are:
• U.S. Department of the Interior, as represented by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management;
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce;
• U.S. Department of Agriculture;
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
• State of Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, Oil Spill Coordinator's Office, Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and Department of Natural Resources;
• State of Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality;
• State of Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and Geological Survey of Alabama;
• State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; and
• For the State of Texas: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas General Land Office, and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
In the April 2011 Framework Agreement for Early Restoration Addressing Injuries Resulting from the
A Notice of Availability of the Draft Phase V Early Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessments (Draft Phase V ERP/EA) was published in the
In four previous phases, the Trustees selected, and BP agreed to fund, a total
The Trustees released the Phase I ERP/EA on April 20, 2012 (77 FR 23741) and the Phase II ERP/ER on February 5, 2013 (78 FR 8184). The Trustees released the Phase III ERP/PEIS on June 26, 2014 (79 FR 36328), and subsequently approved that Plan and programmatic EIS in a Record of Decision on October 31, 2014 (79 FR 64831). The Trustees released the Phase IV ERP/EA on September 23, 2015 (80 FR 57384). These plans are available at:
The Trustees approved the first phase of the Florida Coastal Access Project in the Phase V ERP/EA. The estimated cost for the first phase of the Florida Coastal Access Project is $34,372,184. The estimated cost of the total Florida Coastal Access Project is $45,415,573. The Trustees anticipate proposing an additional future phase of the Florida Coastal Access Project, consisting of similar restoration activities that would utilize the remaining $11,043,389, if approved. Details on the first phase of the Florida Coastal Access Project are provided in the Phase V ERP/EA.
The first phase of the Florida Coastal Access Project is intended to continue the process of using early restoration funding to restore natural resources, ecological services, and recreational use services injured or lost as a result of the
In addition, the Phase V ERP/EA includes notices of change and supporting analysis for two Phase III Early Restoration Projects: “Strategically Provided Boat Access Along Florida's Gulf Coast—City of Port St. Joe, Frank Pate Boat Ramp Improvements” and “Florida Artificial Reef Creation and Restoration.”
The documents comprising the Administrative Record can be viewed electronically at the following location:
The authority of this action is the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting; Postponement.
In the notice published Monday, February 1, 2016 (81 FR 5132), a public meeting of the Bureau of Land Management Nevada Resource Advisory Councils was announced.
The BLM Nevada Resource Advisory Council meeting scheduled for February 10-11, 2016 has been postponed to allow for additional public notice. A new meeting date will be announced at a later time.
On the basis of the record
Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigation. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the
On December 16, 2015, Whirlpool Corp., Benton Harbor, Michigan, filed a petition with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by
Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigation and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)). It completed and filed its determination in this investigation on February 1, 2016. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4591 (February 2016), entitled
By order of the Commission.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS) will submit the following Information Collection Request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the established review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until March 7, 2016.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to Mr. Samuel Berhanu, Unit Chief, Federal Bureau of Investigation, CJIS Division, Module E-3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306; facsimile (304) 625-3566. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20530 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
There are approximately 18,498 law enforcement agency respondents that submit monthly for a total of 221,976 responses with an estimated response time of 14 minutes per response.
6.
There are approximately 51,794 hours, annual burden, associated with this information collection.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until April 5, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Cathy Poston, Office on Violence
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) 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;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E, 405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until April 5, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Suzanne Strong, Statistician, Prosecution and Judicial Statistics, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20531 (email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until April 5, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Suzanne Strong, Statistician, Prosecution and Judicial Statistics, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20531 (email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Legal Services Corporation.
Notice.
On February 3, 2015, the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) published a notice in the
Specifically, LSC seeks (1) comments on the methodology and data used for estimating the agricultural worker population by the U.S. Department of Labor's Employment Training Administration (ETA) considering the additional ETA materials published
Comments must be submitted on or before March 21, 2016.
Written comments must be submitted to Mark Freedman, Senior Associate General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K St. NW., Washington, DC 20007-3522; 202-337-6519 (fax);
Mark Freedman, Senior Associate General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K St. NW., Washington, DC 20007-3522; 202-295-1623 (phone); 202-337-6519 (fax);
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) seeks public comment on three enhancements to its proposal to obtain and implement more current estimates of the U.S. agricultural worker population eligible for LSC-funded legal assistance. LSC will use those estimates to determine how much of the appropriated Basic Field Programs funds to provide through Basic Field—Migrant grants and the distribution of those grants among the states and other LSC service areas.
On February 3, 2015, LSC published a notice in the
A. Implementing the new estimates for the distribution of grants beginning in January 2016.
B. Phasing in the changes by providing intermediate funding halfway between the old and new levels for 2016 and fully implementing the new levels for 2017.
C. Obtaining updated estimates every three years for recalculation on the same statutory cycle as LSC obtains updated poverty-population data from the U.S. Census Bureau for the distribution of LSC's Basic Field Programs appropriation.
Based on the eleven comments received in response to the notice, LSC identified three issues for additional public comment.
1. LSC is providing increased access to the original source data and methodology used by ETA, and LSC seeks comments on ETA's methodology and data.
2. LSC seeks comments on a new proposal for estimating the number of aliens within the agricultural worker population who are eligible for services from LSC grantees pursuant to 45 CFR 1626.4, based on sexual abuse, domestic violence, trafficking, or other abusive or criminal activities.
3. LSC will accept submission of available and reliable state- or region-specific, data-based estimates of the population of agricultural workers eligible for LSC-funded services to augment the ETA estimates in individual states or regions—LSC will accept such estimates only if they include the data and methodologies used, including authorship and other relevant information.
Individuals and organizations can submit materials regarding these three topics to LSC at the address noted above before the specified deadline.
LSC has posted on
On January 21, 2015, LSC Management issued the
Briefly summarized, Congress annually appropriates funds to LSC for supporting legal services for eligible clients through grants to “Basic Field Programs” in each state, territory, and the District of Columbia on a per-capita basis using poverty-population data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Public Law 104-134, tit. V, Sec. 501(a), 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-50 (1996), as amended by Public Law 113-6, div. B, tit. IV, 127 Stat. 198, 268 (2013) (LSC funding formula adopted in 1996, incorporated by reference in LSC's appropriations thereafter, and amended in 2013). LSC divides the total per-capita funding for the area into one category for “Basic Field—General” grants and another category for “Basic Field—Migrant” grants (Migrant Grants) to serve the “special difficulties of access to legal services or special legal problems” of agricultural workers. 42 U.S.C. 2996f(h) (LSC Act requirement that LSC address such issues for farmworkers). LSC determines where to provide Migrant Grants and how much of the Basic Field Programs appropriation to allocate to each Migrant Grant based on the agricultural worker population of that area.
The U.S. Census Bureau does not estimate populations of migrant workers or agricultural workers. For Migrant Grants, LSC has been using information based on historical estimates dating back to 1990. Furthermore, those estimates include only migrant workers and do not count the entire population of agricultural workers—migrants and non-migrants—that LSC expects grantees to serve with Migrant Grants.
Unlike the U.S. Census Bureau, ETA collects data and provides estimates of the agricultural-worker population for federal grants serving the needs of the agricultural workers in the U.S. LSC contracted with ETA to obtain better and more current estimates of the size and distribution of the population of agricultural workers and their dependents who are eligible for services provided by LSC grantees, and who have incomes below the poverty line (the benchmark used by the U.S. Census Bureau for defining the poverty population that LSC uses for distribution of the Basic Field Programs appropriation). ETA provided LSC with these estimates, including state-by-state breakdowns.
The LSC Management Report described the need for special legal services grants to serve agricultural workers and their dependents, how LSC funds those legal services, and the need to update population estimates for those grants. LSC also provided the new national and state‐by‐state estimates of the agricultural worker population eligible for LSC services as provided by ETA.
On February 3, 2015, LSC published a notice in the
A. Using the new estimates for distribution of Migrant Grants beginning in January 2016;
B. phasing in the funding changes to provide intermediate funding halfway between the old and new levels for 2016 and to fully implement the new levels for 2017; and
C. obtaining and implementing new estimates every three years on the same cycle as LSC obtains and implements new poverty-population data for LSC's Basic Field—General grants.
LSC received eleven comments from eight organizations and three individuals. The National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA) submitted two comments—one from the NLADA Civil Policy Group and one from the NLADA Farmworker Section. The American Bar Association commented through its Standing Committee of Legal Aid and Indigent Defense. Six LSC grantees submitted comments: (1) Georgia Legal Services, (2) Iowa Legal Aid, (3) the Michigan Advocacy Program (Legal Services of South Central Michigan and Farmworker Legal Services), (4) Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services, (5) Legal Aid of Nebraska, and (6) Legal Action of Wisconsin. Three individuals submitted comments.
Generally, the comments supported using better estimates for distributing funds for these grants. This section summarizes the comments and identifies three issues about which LSC now seeks further comment. LSC does not seek comment on any of the other issues in the original notice or comments.
The comments all affirmed the need for specialized services to agricultural workers and dependents, and endorsed continuing to separate funds for grants for those specialized services out of the Basic Field Programs appropriation. These comments agreed with LSC's determination that due to a variety of factors—including social, cultural, and geographic isolation and the unique body of laws governing agricultural employment—eligible agricultural workers and their families have special legal problems and difficulties accessing civil legal services that are different from those faced by the general population of eligible clients. Thus, consistent with the LSC Act's requirement to address such issues, LSC should provide separate Migrant Grants.
The comments supported LSC's proposal to obtain and use more current estimates of the size of the agricultural worker population within each state.
Most comments supported LSC's proposal to update its definition of eligible agricultural workers and dependents to include all crop workers (migrant, seasonal, and otherwise), livestock workers, and forestry workers.
One LSC grantee recommended limiting the parameters to people who perform agricultural work as migrants and excluding non-migrant workers. One individual expressed concern about the impact of including livestock and forestry workers (or other non-traditional agricultural workers) in the national count of “agricultural workers.” That commenter argued that those other populations have less need for specialized legal services than people working in traditional hand-harvest labor. Furthermore, that commenter expressed concern that the inclusion of these workers would result in a shift in funding and service delivery from the “traditional farmworker states” to other states.
LSC will include the previously-proposed categories of livestock and forestry workers (and other non-migrant agricultural workers) in the new estimates as supported by many of the comments. LSC agrees that migrant workers and their dependents face particular challenges because of their geographic mobility and heightened social and cultural isolation. For the reasons set forth in the LSC Management Report, the legal needs of non-migrant agricultural workers are more similar to those of migrant agricultural workers than to those of non-agricultural workers and are most efficiently and effectively addressed by legal services providers with experience serving those unique needs. Thus, LSC can best serve the legal needs of all individuals eligible for LSC-funded services by allocating funds to the Migrant Grants for all agricultural workers rather than dividing the agricultural worker population between Migrant Grants and Basic Field—General grants.
The comments expressing concerns that a modification in the definition of agricultural workers will alter the distribution of funds among the states are based on a misunderstanding regarding the allocation of funding to Migrant Grants.
Finally, some comments also suggested that LSC include off-farm fruit and vegetable canning workers in its definition of agricultural workers because those workers can face the same barriers to accessing civil legal assistance experienced by the agricultural workers currently included in LSC's “agricultural worker” definition. The ETA expert panel recommended excluding those off-farm workers from the definition of agricultural workers because those workers are not subject to the special Fair Labor Standards Act rules that apply to the other categories of agricultural workers.
One individual commented that LSC should provide funds to serve both eligible and ineligible workers. LSC does not structure special-purpose grants to serve ineligible people.
Some comments questioned ETA's methodology, source data, and the resulting estimates. As discussed in more detail in Section IV below (Areas for Further Public Input), these comments focused on (1) potential inaccuracies in ETA's final state estimates based on the use of the National Agricultural Worker Survey (NAWS) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) regional ratios, (2) the lack of access to the source data and methodology used by ETA, and (3) the need for adjustments to the estimates for aliens eligible for LSC-grantee services based
Some comments also asked if the count of eligible dependents of farmworkers excluded as “unauthorized” aliens who are spouses, parents, or (in some cases) children of U.S. citizens and who are beneficiaries of pending I-130 petitions for permanent residence. LSC grantees can serve those individuals under 45 CFR 1626.5(b). ETA reported that the NAWS survey instrument is designed to identify individuals with pending I-130 petitions, so that those individuals were included in the eligible population estimate.
All comments endorsed a phase-in approach, while many suggested a delay to allow grantees (both farmworker and basic field grant recipients) time to implement appropriate delivery changes based on new estimates. LSC's decision to publish this notice seeking additional comment has moved implementation to January 2017. LSC will phase in funding changes so that one-half of the transition occurs in 2017 and the full changes occur in 2018.
All comments supported LSC's proposal to update the estimates at regular intervals. These comments agreed with LSC that updating those estimates on a more regular basis would cause less disruption for recipients in the future.
A number of comments, however, questioned whether LSC's proposal to update these estimates in three-year intervals would be sufficiently regular enough to account for rapid changes in agricultural worker populations. Furthermore, comments requested that LSC accept additional public comment once more information is known about the impact of the Census Bureau's recent announcement concerning discontinuing the so-called “three-year estimates” produced in conjunction with the American Community Survey. LSC will adopt the proposed triennial adjustment because Congress mandates that LSC obtain updated poverty-population data from the Census Bureau every three years for redistribution of the Basic Field Program appropriation. Public Law 104-134, tit. V, 501(a)(2)(A), 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-51 (1996), as amended by Public Law 113-6, div. B, tit. IV, 127 Stat. 198, 268 (2013) (LSC funding formula adopted in the 1996 LSC appropriation, incorporated by reference in LSC's appropriations thereafter, and amended in the 2013 LSC appropriation). LSC grantees can budget and plan service delivery better if LSC makes one adjustment to the distribution of grant funds every three years that includes both (1) the national distribution
LSC has identified three additional areas for public comment.
Some comments maintained that they could not evaluate the validity of the ETA estimates because they did not have all the necessary information about the methodologies and data used to develop those estimates. LSC has provided greater access to the data and methodology used by ETA by producing the following additional tables. All tables are published at
Table I is a forty-three-column table that provides updated estimates of the LSC-Eligible Agricultural Worker Population for each state, for each region, and nationally and identifies all of the data sources, methods and calculations on which the updated agricultural working population estimates are based.
Table II is an abbreviated version of Table I. This fifteen-column table provides the updated estimates of the LSC-Eligible Agricultural Worker Population for each state, for each region, and nationally and identifies the most significant steps in the estimation formula on which the updated agricultural working population estimates are based.
Table III is a five-column table that identifies for each state, for each region, and nationally: (1) The percentage of agricultural workers in poverty, (2) the percentage of farmworkers that are U.S. citizens or authorized aliens, and (3) the percentage of farmworkers that are in both categories.
Table IV is a five-column table that identifies for each state, for each region, and nationally the percentage of agricultural worker dependents who are: (1) In poverty, (2) U.S. citizens or authorized aliens, and (3) in both categories.
Table V is a nine-column table that identifies for each state, for each region, and nationally the percentage and number of agricultural workers who are eligible (
Table VI is a twelve-column table that identifies each for state, for each region, and nationally the number of unauthorized and below-poverty agricultural workers eligible for LSC-funded services pursuant to the Anti-Abuse provisions of 45 CFR 1626.4.
Table VII is a seven-column table that provides for each state and nationally the estimated migrant population currently used to allocate LSC funding and the updated estimated agricultural worker population.
Because of NAWS survey data confidentiality issues, not all survey data can be published. Persons or entities needing access to the restricted NAWS data may seek approval to access the data in either (1) Washington, DC, at
Several comments questioned the potential exclusion in the published estimates of certain non-U.S. citizen “unauthorized” farmworkers who could be LSC eligible pursuant to specific anti-abuse statutes, as provided in 45 CFR 1626.4. LSC separates Basic Field Programs funds into Basic Field—General Grants and Migrant Grants in order to make LSC funds available through grantees that are best equipped to serve the needs of different parts of the population of LSC-eligible clients. LSC therefore needs to use the best available information to estimate those populations and direct funds accordingly. Notably, these estimates do not affect the eligibility of any applicants for services; the numbers are used only for distribution of funding.
It is widely recognized by experts in the field that significant numbers of non-U.S. citizen farmworkers without work authorization are already subject to the abusive or criminal activities that would qualify them for LSC grantees' services pursuant to § 1626.4. However, the lack of data on this population precluded ETA from developing a national number to estimate this population. As a result, the published estimates implicitly assume that no unauthorized farmworkers are eligible for LSC-funded services.
This implicit assumption is inconsistent with statutes that explicitly authorize representation of unauthorized individuals who have been subject to abuse, sexual assault, trafficking, or certain other crimes and both public and private data that demonstrate that significant numbers of farmworkers are subject to such crimes and therefore eligible for LSC-funded services based on the provisions of 45 CFR 1626.4. In response to these concerns, LSC has identified and assessed available sources regarding the extent of these crimes against farmworkers and developed a methodology to estimate the size of the farmworker population that would be eligible for LSC grantees' services based on the provisions of § 1626.4.
Some comments raised concerns about the source data and the methodology used by ETA. In particular, concerns were raised about the types of state groupings used for distribution of the estimated population among the states, leading to understatements of the number of LSC-eligible farmworkers in particular states. Specifically, comments stated that differences affecting agricultural workforces within a NAWS/NASS region produced inaccurate estimates for states within that region. Comments expressed the concern that states grouped together by geographic proximity did not share similarities in commodities or farmworker workforces. These comments also identified potential sources of more detailed estimates within specific states or regions.
LSC investigated the possibility of ETA's developing alternative estimates of the LSC-eligible population by reconfiguring the NAWS/NASS regions, but ETA determined that doing so is not feasible.
Although the NAWS/NASS regions produce the best available nationwide and regional population estimates, LSC understands that the NAWS/NASS regions might not account for unique, state-specific factors that could be relevant to delivery of these legal services in some states. Therefore, LSC requests submission of available and reliable state- or region-specific estimates of the population of agricultural workers eligible for LSC-funded services to augment the ETA estimates in individual states or regions. We underscore that the estimates must include both the source data (and data description) and a detailed summary of the research methodology employed to derive the estimates. The information should also identify all authors and any relevant citations or references to those estimates or to materials relied upon by those estimates. Please note that LSC uses the 100%-of-poverty threshold for population estimates. After the close of the comment period, LSC will publish on
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of intent to grant exclusive license.
This notice is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive license in the United States to practice the inventions described and claimed in USPN 8,384,614, Deployable Wireless Fresnel Lens; NASA Case No. MSC-24525-1 to Wifi2way, LLC, having its principal place of business in Holmdel, NJ. The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective exclusive license will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, NASA receives written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Competing applications completed and received by NASA within fifteen (15) days of the date of this published notice will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license.
Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Objections relating to the prospective license may be submitted to Patent Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, NASA Johnson Space Center, 2101 NASA Parkway, Mail Code AL, Houston, Texas 77058; Phone (281) 483-3021; Fax (281) 483-6936.
Ms. Michelle P. Lewis, Technology Transfer and Commercialization Office, NASA Johnson Space Center, 2101 NASA Parkway, Mail Code AO52, Houston, TX 77058, (281) 483-8051. Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
The National Science Board, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the addition of an agenda item in the plenary closed session of the National Science Board meetings on February 3, 2016, as shown below. The original notice appeared in the
Please refer to the National Science Board Web site for additional information. Meeting information and schedule updates (time, place, subject matter or status of meeting) may be found at
Ron Campbell,
National Science Foundation.
Notice of Permit Applications Received under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act at Title 45 Part 670 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of permit applications received.
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by March 7, 2016. This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, Division of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, at the above address or
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas a requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.
ASPA entry; A permit is requested to enter ASPA 152 (Western Bransfield Strait) and ASPA 153 (Eastern Dallmann Bay) using the ARSV Laurence M. Gould to capture Antarctic fish by trawling and trapping. The collected fish would be used to study the effects of a warming Southern Ocean on development of the embryos of Antarctic fishes. Data collected under this permit would be part of a long-term (30-year) dataset. Approximately 50 hours of trawling would be conducted in ASPA 152 and approximately 20 hours would be conducted in ASPA 153. Sixteen traps would be set and allowed to soak for a total of 6 days. It is anticipated that approximately five hundred (500) individual fish representing four species (
ASPA 152 Western Bransfield Strait and ASPA 153 Eastern Dallmann Bay.
April 17, 2016 to September 1, 2018.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, Division of Polar Programs, Rm. 755,
On December 24, 2015 the National Science Foundation published a notice in the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft NUREG; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment a draft NUREG-1021, Revision 11, “Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors.”
Submit comments by March 21, 2016. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC staff is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Maurin Scheetz, telephone: 301-415-2758, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0006 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0006 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The draft NUREG provides policy and guidance for the development, administration, and grading of examinations used for licensing operators at nuclear power plants under the Commission's regulations in part 55 of title 10 of the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “NRC Form 790 Classification Record.”
Submit comments by March 7, 2016.
Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: Vlad Dorjets, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0052), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503;
Kristen Benney, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6355; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0081 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “NRC Form 790, Classification Record.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License renewal application; docketing; opportunity to request a hearing and to petition for leave to intervene; order.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering an application for the renewal of Facility Operating License No. R-113, which authorizes the United States Geological Survey (USGS or the licensee) to operate the USGS Training, Research, Isotope Production, General Atomics (TRIGA) Research Reactor (GSTR) at a maximum steady-state thermal power of 1.0 megawatts (MW). The GSTR is a TRIGA-fueled research reactor located at the Denver Federal Center, in Lakewood, Colorado. If approved, the renewed license would authorize the licensee to operate the GSTR up to a steady-state thermal power of 1.0 MW for an additional 20 years from the date of issuance of the renewed license.
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by April 5, 2016. Any potential party as defined in § 2.4 of title 10 of the
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0284 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:
•
•
•
Geoffrey Wertz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0893; email:
The NRC is considering an application for the renewal of Facility Operating License No. R-113, which authorizes the licensee to operate the GSTR at a maximum steady-state thermal power of 1.0 MW. The renewed license would authorize the licensee to operate the GSTR up to a steady-state thermal power of 1.0 MW for an additional 20 years from the date of issuance of the renewed license.
By letter dated January 5, 2009, and as supplemented by various letters referenced in Section IV, “Availability of Documents,” of this document, the NRC received an application from the licensee filed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.51(a) to renew Facility Operating License No. R-113 for the GSTR. The application contains SUNSI.
Based on its initial review of the application, the NRC staff determined that the licensee submitted sufficient information in accordance with 10 CFR 50.33 and 50.34 so that the application is acceptable for docketing. The current Docket No. 50-274 for Facility Operating License No. R-113 will be retained. The docketing of the renewal application does not preclude requests for additional information as the review proceeds, nor does it predict whether the Commission will grant or deny the application. Prior to a decision to renew the license, the Commission will make findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, “Hearing requests, petitions to intervene, requirements for standing, and contentions,” which is available at the NRC's PDR, located in One White Flint North, Room O1-F21 (first floor), 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted, with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion that support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the license renewal under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with NRC regulations, policies, and procedures. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will set the time and place for any prehearing conferences and evidentiary hearings, and the appropriate notices will be provided.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the
If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by April 5, 2016.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is
Documents related to this action, including the license renewal application and other supporting documentation are available to interested persons as indicated.
Portions of the license renewal application and its supporting documents contain SUNSI. These portions will not be available to the public. Any person requesting access to SUNSI must follow the procedures described in the Order below.
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing SUNSI.
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request such access. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after the requestor is granted access to that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is granted access to the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline. This provision does not extend the time for filing a request for a hearing and petition to intervene, which must comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.309.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing and need for access, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) officer if that officer has been designated to rule on information access issues.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311.
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. Attachment 1 to the Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
February 8, 15, 22, 29, March 7, 14, 2016.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 8, 2016.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 15, 2016.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 7, 2016.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 13 negotiated service agreement to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30-.35, the Postal Service filed a formal request and associated supporting information to add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 13 to the competitive product list.
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-76 and CP2016-98 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 13 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than February 9, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Katalin K. Clendenin to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-76 and CP2016-98 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Katalin K. Clendenin is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than February 9, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on February 1, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Notice is hereby given that the Railroad Retirement Board will hold a meeting on February 23, 2016, 10:00 a.m. at the Board's meeting room on the 8th floor of its headquarters building, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611. The agenda for this meeting follows:
The person to contact for more information is Martha P. Rico, Secretary to the Board, Phone No. 312-751-4920.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend BX Rule 4757, entitled “Book Processing” to adopt a Limit Order Protection or “LOP” and a Market Order Protection for members accessing the BX.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt two new mechanisms to protect against erroneous orders which are entered into BX. Specifically, these features address risks to market participants of human error in entering Orders at unintended prices. LOP and the Market Order Protection would prevent certain Orders from executing or being placed on the Order Book at prices outside pre-set standard limits. The System would not accept such Orders, rather than executing them automatically.
Today, the National Market System Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility (the “Plan”)
The Exchange proposes to adopt two new features, LOP for Limit Orders and Market Order Protection for Market Orders, which would cancel these Orders back to the member when the order exceeds certain defined logic. These two new features would be in addition to the LULD protections, which exist today.
The Exchange proposes to adopt a new LOP feature on BX to prevent certain Limit Orders at prices outside of pre-set standard limits (“LOP Limit Table”) from being accepted by the System. LOP shall apply to all Quotes and Orders,
The Exchange proposes to not accept incoming Limit Orders that exceed the LOP Reference Threshold. The LOP Limit Table contains upper limits and lower limits, for a particular security, across all trading sessions. For example, today, if the NBO is at $50 and a Limit Buy Order was entered into the System at $500, the Limit Buy Order would execute at $50 and then would continue to be executed at other applicable price levels within the Order Book until the Limit Buy Order was canceled or halted. The Exchange proposes LOP to avoid a series of improperly priced aggressive orders transacting in the Order Book.
With respect to Market Maker Peg Orders,
The Exchange will send an Equity Trader Alert in advance of implementation with the initial LOP
LOP will cause Limit Orders to not be accepted if the price of the Limit Order is greater than the LOP Reference Threshold for a buy Limit Order. Limit Orders will also not be accepted if the price of the Limit Order is less than the LOP Reference Threshold for a sell Limit Order. The Exchange believes that doubling the band percentage for pre-open and post-close sessions is reasonable due to the volatility which may occur in the market during those trading sessions. The LULD Plan also doubles the percentages between 9:30 a.m. and 9:45 a.m. ET, and 3:35 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. ET. The Exchange's proposal aligns this protection with the LULD Plan.
The LOP Reference Price shall be the current consolidated national Best Bid or Best Offer (consolidated NBBO), the Bid for sell orders and the Offer for buy orders. If there is no consolidated NBBO for a security, or if there is a one-sided market, the last regular way consolidated sale, adjusted for corporate actions, if any, will be the LOP Reference Price. If there is no last regular way consolidated sale on that trade date, then the prior day's adjusted close will be the LOP Reference Price.
The LOP Reference Threshold for buy orders will be the LOP Reference Price (offer) plus the applicable percentage specified in the LOP Limit Table. The LOP Reference Threshold for sell orders will be the LOP Reference Price (bid) minus the applicable percentage specified in the LOP Limit Table.
With respect to Market Orders, these Orders will not be accepted if the security is in an LULD Straddle State.
The Exchange also notes that both LOP and Market Order Protection will be applicable to all protocols.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed LOP and Market Order Protection features would assist with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by mitigating the risks associated with errors resulting in executions at prices that are away from the Best Bid or Offer and potentially erroneous. Further the proposal protects investors from potentially receiving executions away from the prevailing prices at any given time.
The Exchange believes that the LOP Limit Table is appropriate because it is based on the current LULD bands. The Exchange believes that the proposed specified percentages are appropriate because LOP is designed to reduce the risk of, and to potentially prevent, the automatic execution of Orders at prices that may be considered clearly erroneous. The System will only
The Exchange believes that the proposal to not accept System Orders in a Straddle State will prevent Market Orders from being entered by market participants at erroneous prices which the Exchange believes would stray widely from the LULD defined reference price.
The Exchange believes LOP and Market Order Protection will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market because these features will operate in tandem with LULD.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the LOP and Market Order Protection features will provide market participants with additional protection from anomalous executions, in addition to LULD protections. Thus, the Exchange does not believe the proposal creates any significant impact on competition. The Exchange believes that offering these protections to the BX will not impose any undue burden on intra-market competition, rather, it would permit equities and options members to be protected in a similar manner from erroneous executions.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 11, 2015, NYSE MKT LLC (“Exchange” or “NYSE MKT”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
As part of a regulatory restructuring, NYSE proposes to: (i) Amend the Operating Agreement to establish a Committee for Review (“CFR”) as a subcommittee of the Regulatory Oversight Committee (“ROC”)
The Exchange proposes that these rule revisions would be operative simultaneously with the termination of the Regulatory Services Agreement between the Exchange and NYSE Regulation, but no later than June 30, 2016, on a date to be determined by the Board.
The Exchange proposes to establish a Committee for Review (“CFR”) as a subcommittee of the ROC by adding a new subsection (h)(iii) to Section 2.03 of the Operating Agreement and to make conforming changes to Exchange Rules 475, 476, 476A, 20—Equities, 308—Equities and Sections 1201, 1204, 1205, 1206, 1211, and 1212T of the Company Guide.
Section 2.03(h)(iii) of the Operating Agreement would provide that the Board shall annually appoint a CFR as a subcommittee of the ROC. The Exchange notes that proposed Section 2.03(h)(iii) of the Operating Agreement incorporates member organization association requirements of the current CFR.
The proposed CFR would be responsible for reviewing the disciplinary decisions on behalf of the Board and reviewing determinations to limit or prohibit the continued listing of an issuer's securities on the Exchange.
According to the Exchange, member participation on the proposed CFR would be sufficient to provide for the fair representation of members in the administration of the affairs of the Exchange, including rulemaking and the disciplinary process, consistent with Section 6(b)(3) of the Act.
The Exchange proposes to make conforming amendments to Exchange Rules 475, 476, 476A and 308—Equities and Sections 1201, 1204, 1205, 1206, 1211, and 1212T of the Company Guide by generally replacing references to the current NYSE Regulation CFR with references to the “Committee for Review.”
The Exchange further proposes to amend Rule 476(f) to provide that the CFR may, but would not be required to, appoint an appeals panel to conduct a review thereunder and make a recommendation to the CFR regarding the disposition of the appeal. The Exchange represents that appeals panels would have no other role in the appellate process.
The Exchange proposes in connection with the Exchange's termination of the intercompany RSA to amend Section 4.05 of the Operating Agreement as well as Exchange Rules 0 (Regulation of the Exchange and its Member Organizations), 1—Equities (Definitions of Terms), 22—Equities (Disqualification Because of Personal Interest), 36 (Supplementary Material .30)—Equities (Communications Between Exchange and Members' Offices), 46 (Supplementary Material
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rules 48—Equities (Exemptive Relief—Extreme Market Volatility Condition), 49—Equities (Emergency Powers), and 86—Equities (NYSE Bonds), to replace references to the Chief Executive Officer of NYSE Regulation with references to the Chief Regulatory Officer of the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to make certain technical and non-substantive changes to amend Exchange Rules 1—Equities (Definitions of Terms), 48—Equities (Exemptive Relief— Extreme Market Volatility Condition), and 103B—Equities (Security Allocation and Reallocation). The Exchange also proposes to make certain technical and non-substantive changes to amend the Exchange's Company Guide Sections 350 (Cancellation Notice), 1204 (The Listing Qualifications Panel), 1205 (Review by the Exchange Committee on Securities), 1206 (Discretionary Review by Board of Directors), 1212T (Temporary Provisions Regarding Legacy Applications for Initial Listing), and the Listing Forms Appendix.
Exchange Rule 1-Equities, which defines the term the “Exchange,” would be amended to replace single quotation marks with double quotation marks in the heading and in the first paragraph.
Exchange Rule 48—Equities, which sets forth the procedures for invoking an extreme market volatility condition, would be amended to replace single quotation marks with double quotation marks around the term “qualified Exchange officer.”
Exchange Rule 103B—Equities, which governs the security allocation and reallocation process, would be amended to replace single quotation marks with double quotation marks around the term “Allocation Prohibition” and to remove the comma from “New York Stock Exchange, LLC.”
The Exchange proposes to update the sample letter set forth in Section 350 of the Exchange's Company Guide. Section 350 provides that a company no longer intending to issue all or some securities for listing should cancel the listing authority by notifying the Exchange by letter, and provides a sample letter for use by listed companies. The Exchange proposes to amend the sample letter in Section 350 by changing the addressee from “Office of General Counsel” to “Legal Department,” updating the address to “11 Wall Street,” and the salutation from “Dear Sirs” to “Ladies and Gentlemen.” Similarly, the Exchange proposes to make conforming changes in the Exchange's Company Guide Sections 1204, 1205, 1206 and 1212T to replace references to the “Office of General Counsel” with “Legal Department.”
The Exchange also proposes to amend Section 1212T(c) to replace the outdated reference to “American Stock Exchange” with “Exchange.”
Finally, the Exchange proposes to update the Listing Forms Appendix to update the address from “30 Broad” to “11 Wall” Street.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Exchange represents that the proposed CFR would be a successor to the current CFR, which is a committee of the NYSE Regulation's Board of Directors that reviews appeals of Exchange disciplinary actions, and the Committee on Securities, which is a committee of the Exchange's Board that reviews determinations to limit or prohibit the continued listing of an issuer's securities on the Exchange.
The Commission also finds that the composition of the proposed CFR ensures the fair representation of members in the administration of the Exchange's affairs.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 476(f) to permit the CFR to appoint an appeals panel, consisting of at least three and no more than five individuals, which would conduct a review of any disciplinary determination on behalf of the CFR, and make a recommendation to the CFR regarding the disposition of such appeal.
Finally, the Commission finds that it is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act for the Exchange to make various technical and conforming revisions to its Rules.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend NASDAQ OMX PSX Rule 3307, entitled “Processing of Orders” to adopt a Limit Order Protection or “LOP” and a Market Order Protection for members accessing PSX.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt two new mechanisms to protect against erroneous orders which are entered into PSX. Specifically, these features address risks to market participants of human error in entering Orders at unintended prices. LOP and the Market Order Protection would prevent certain Orders from executing or being placed on the Order Book at prices outside pre-set standard limits. The System would not accept such Orders, rather than executing them automatically.
Today, the National Market System Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility (the “Plan”)
The Exchange proposes to adopt two new features, LOP for Limit Orders and Market Order Protection for Market Orders, which would cancel these Orders back to the member when the order exceeds certain defined logic. These two new features would be in addition to the LULD protections, which exist today.
The Exchange proposes to adopt a new LOP feature on PSX to prevent certain Limit Orders at prices outside of pre-set standard limits (“LOP Limit Table”) from being accepted by the System. LOP shall apply to all Quotes and Orders,
The Exchange proposes to not accept incoming Limit Orders that exceed the LOP Reference Threshold. The LOP Limit Table contains upper limits and lower limits, for a particular security, across all trading sessions. For example, today, if the NBO is at $50 and a Limit Buy Order was entered into the System at $500, the Limit Buy Order would execute at $50 and then would continue to be executed at other applicable price levels within the Order Book until the Limit Buy Order was canceled or halted. The Exchange proposes LOP to avoid a series of improperly priced aggressive orders transacting in the Order Book.
With respect to Market Maker Peg Orders,
The Exchange will send an Equity Trader Alert in advance of implementation with the initial LOP Limit Table and, thereafter, to modify the LOP Limit Table. The initial LOP Limit Table utilizes the same limits as LULD to compare against the LOP Reference Threshold. The Exchange believes that utilizing the same tiers and bands will seek to provide additional market protection to PSX members that submit erroneous orders, prior to reaching LULD limits. The initial LOP table is below.
LOP will cause Limit Orders to not be accepted if the price of the Limit Order is greater than the LOP Reference Threshold for a buy Limit Order. Limit Orders will also not be accepted if the price of the Limit Order is less than the LOP Reference Threshold for a sell Limit Order. The Exchange believes that doubling the band percentage for pre-open and post-close sessions is reasonable due to the volatility which may occur in the market during those trading sessions. The LULD Plan also doubles the percentages between 9:30 a.m. and 9:45 a.m. ET, and 3:35 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. ET. The Exchange's proposal aligns this protection with the LULD Plan.
The LOP Reference Price shall be the current consolidated national Best Bid or Best Offer (consolidated NBBO), the Bid for sell orders and the Offer for buy orders. If there is no consolidated NBBO for a security, or if there is a one-sided market, the last regular way consolidated sale, adjusted for corporate actions, if any, will be the LOP Reference Price. If there is no last regular way consolidated sale on that trade date, then the prior day's adjusted close will be the LOP Reference Price.
The LOP Reference Threshold for buy orders will be the LOP Reference Price (offer) plus the applicable percentage specified in the LOP Limit Table. The LOP Reference Threshold for sell orders will be the LOP Reference Price (bid) minus the applicable percentage specified in the LOP Limit Table.
With respect to Market Orders, these Orders will not be accepted if the security is in an LULD Straddle State.
The Exchange also notes that both LOP and Market Order Protection will be applicable to all protocols.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed LOP and Market Order Protection features would assist with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by mitigating the risks associated with errors resulting in executions at prices that are away from the Best Bid or Offer and potentially erroneous. Further the proposal protects investors from potentially receiving executions away from the prevailing prices at any given time.
The Exchange believes that the LOP Limit Table is appropriate because it is based on the current LULD bands. The Exchange believes that the proposed specified percentages are appropriate because LOP is designed to reduce the risk of, and to potentially prevent, the automatic execution of Orders at prices that may be considered clearly erroneous. The System will only execute Limit Orders priced within the LOP Limit Table or within the upper (lower) band of LULD, if the latter is more conservative.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to not accept System Orders that are Market Orders in a Straddle State will prevent Market Orders from being executed by market participants at erroneous prices which the Exchange believes would stray widely from the LULD defined reference price.
The Exchange believes LOP and Market Order Protection will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market because these features will operate in tandem with LULD.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the LOP and Market
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order pursuant to: (a) Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) granting an exemption from sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; (b) section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act granting an exemption from section 12(d)(1) of the Act; (c) sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption from sections 17(a)(1), 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Act; and (d) section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint arrangements and transactions.
Applicants request an order that would permit certain registered open-end management investment companies to participate in a joint lending and borrowing facility.
PNC Funds and PNC Advantage Funds (each a “Trust” and collectively the “Trusts”); the series thereof, and any registered open-end management investment company or series thereof in the future (each a “Fund” and, collectively, the “Funds”); and PNC Capital Advisors LLC (the “Adviser”).
The application was filed on August 10, 2015, and amended on January 11, 2016.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on February 26, 2016 and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Brent J. Fields, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: c/o Todd P. Zerega, Esq., Perkins Coie LLP, 700 13th Street NW., Washington, DC 20005.
James D. McGinnis, Attorney-Advisor, at (202) 551-3025 or Sara Crovitz, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-6720 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Each Trust is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and is registered under the Act as an open-end, management investment company. Each
2. The Funds may lend cash to banks or other entities by entering into repurchase agreements or purchasing other short-term instruments. The Funds may also need to borrow money from the same or similar banks for temporary purposes, to cover unanticipated cash shortfalls such as a trade “fail” or for other temporary purposes. The Funds may in the future establish a line of credit with one or more banks; currently, the Funds are not parties to any credit facilities with banks (“Bank Borrowings”).
3. The Funds seek to enter into a master interfund lending agreement (“Interfund Lending Agreement”) with each other that would permit each Fund
4. Applicants anticipate that the proposed Interfund Lending Program would provide a borrowing Fund with significant savings at times when the cash position of the Fund is insufficient to meet temporary cash requirements. This situation could arise when shareholder redemptions exceed anticipated cash volumes and certain Funds have insufficient cash on hand to satisfy such redemptions. When the Funds liquidate portfolio securities to meet redemption requests, they often do not receive payment in settlement for up to three days (or longer for certain foreign transactions and/or fixed income instruments). However, redemption requests normally are effected on the day following the trade date. The proposed Interfund Lending Program would provide a source of immediate, short-term liquidity pending settlement of the sale of portfolio securities.
5. Applicants also anticipate that a Fund could use the Interfund Lending Program when a sale of securities “fails” due to circumstances beyond the Fund's control, such as a delay in the delivery of cash to the Fund's custodian or improper delivery instructions by the broker effecting the transaction. “Sales fails” may present a cash shortfall if the Fund has undertaken to purchase a security using the proceeds from securities sold. Alternatively, the Fund could: (i) “fail” on its intended purchase due to lack of funds from the previous sale, resulting in additional cost to the Fund; or (ii) sell a security on a same-day settlement basis, earning a lower return on the investment. Use of the Interfund Lending Program under these circumstances would enable the Fund to have access to immediate, short-term liquidity.
6. While custodian overdrafts generally could supply Funds with needed cash to cover unanticipated redemptions and sales fails, under the proposed Interfund Lending Program, a borrowing Fund would pay lower interest rates than those that would be typically payable under an overdraft with the custodian. In addition, Funds making short-term cash loans directly to other Funds would earn interest at a rate higher than they otherwise could obtain from investing their cash in overnight repurchase agreements or other substantially equivalent short-term instruments. Thus, applicants assert that the proposed Interfund Lending Program would benefit both borrowing and lending Funds.
7. The interest rate to be charged to the Funds on any Interfund Loan (the “Interfund Loan Rate”) would be the average of the “Repo Rate” and the “Bank Loan Rate,” both as defined below. The Repo Rate would be the highest or best (after giving effect to factors such as the credit quality of the counterparty) current overnight repurchase agreement rate available to a lending Fund. The Bank Loan Rate for any day would be calculated by the Interfund Lending Program Team, as defined below, on each day an Interfund Loan is made according to a formula established by each Fund's board of trustees (each a “Board”) intended to approximate the lowest interest rate at which a bank short-term loan would be available to the Fund. The formula would be based upon a publicly available rate (
8. Certain members of the Adviser's administrative personnel (other than investment advisory personnel) (the “Interfund Lending Program Team”) would administer the Interfund Lending Program. No portfolio manager of any Fund will serve as a member of the Interfund Lending Program. Under the proposed Interfund Lending Program, the portfolio managers for each participating Fund could provide standing instructions to participate daily as a borrower or lender. The Interfund Lending Program Team on each business day would collect data on the uninvested cash and borrowing requirements of all participating Funds. Once the Interfund Lending Program Team has determined the aggregate amount of cash available for loans and borrowing demand, the Interfund Lending Program Team would allocate loans among borrowing Funds without any further communication from the portfolio managers of the Funds. Applicants anticipate that there typically will be far more available uninvested cash each day than borrowing demand. Therefore, after the Interfund Lending Program Team has
9. The Interfund Lending Program Team would allocate borrowing demand and cash available for lending among the Funds on what the Interfund Lending Program Team believes to be an equitable basis, subject to certain administrative procedures applicable to all Funds, such as the time a Fund files a request to participate, minimum loan lot sizes, and the need to minimize the number of transactions and associated administrative costs. To reduce transaction costs, each Interfund Loan normally would be allocated in a manner intended to minimize the number of participants necessary to complete the loan transaction. The method of allocation and related administrative procedures would be approved by the Boards of the Funds, including a majority of the Board members who are not “interested persons,” as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act (“Independent Trustees”), to ensure that both borrowing and lending Funds participate on an equitable basis.
10. The Interfund Lending Program Team would: (i) Monitor the Interfund Loan Rate and the other terms and conditions of the Interfund Loans; (ii) limit the borrowings and loans entered into by each Fund to ensure that they comply with the Fund's investment policies and limitations; (iii) ensure equitable treatment of each Fund; and (iv) make quarterly reports to the Board of each Fund concerning any transactions by the applicable Fund under the Interfund Lending Program and the Interfund Loan Rate charged.
11. The Adviser or Sub-Adviser, as applicable, through the Interfund Lending Program Team, would administer the Interfund Lending Program as a disinterested fiduciary as part of its duties under the investment management and administrative agreements with each Fund and would receive no additional fee as compensation for its services in connection with the administration of the Interfund Lending Program.
12. No Fund may participate in the Interfund Lending Program unless: (i) The Fund has obtained shareholder approval for its participation, if such approval is required by law; (ii) the Fund has fully disclosed all material information concerning the Interfund Lending Program in its registration statement on form N-1A; and (iii) the Fund's participation in the Interfund Lending Program is consistent with its investment objectives, limitations and organizational documents.
13. In connection with the Interfund Lending Program, applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act exempting them from the provisions of sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act exempting them from section 12(d)(1) of the Act; under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act exempting them from sections 17(a)(1), 17(a)(2), and 17(a)(3) of the Act; and under section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint arrangements and transactions.
1. Section 17(a)(3) of the Act generally prohibits any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or affiliated person of an affiliated person, from borrowing money or other property from the registered investment company. Section 21(b) of the Act generally prohibits any registered management company from lending money or other property to any person, directly or indirectly, if that person controls or is under common control with that company. Section 2(a)(3)(C) of the Act defines an “affiliated person” of another person, in part, to be any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, such other person. Section 2(a)(9) of the Act defines “control” as the “power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a company,” but excludes circumstances in which “such power is solely the result of an official position with such company.” Applicants state that the Funds may be under common control by virtue of having common investment advisers and/or by having common trustees, managers and/or officers.
2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that an exemptive order may be granted where an exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed transaction from section 17(a) provided that the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the transaction is consistent with the policy of the investment company as recited in its registration statement and with the general purposes of the Act. Applicants believe that the proposed arrangements satisfy these standards for the reasons discussed below.
3. Applicants assert that sections 17(a)(3) and 21(b) of the Act were intended to prevent a party with strong potential adverse interests to, and some influence over the investment decisions of, a registered investment company from causing or inducing the investment company to engage in lending transactions that unfairly inure to the benefit of such party and that are detrimental to the best interests of the investment company and its shareholders. Applicants assert that the proposed transactions do not raise these concerns because: (i) The Advisers, through the Interfund Lending Program Team members, would administer the Interfund Lending Program as disinterested fiduciaries as part of their duties under the investment management and administrative agreements with each Fund; (ii) all Interfund Loans would consist only of uninvested cash reserves that the Fund otherwise would invest in short-term repurchase agreements or other short-term investments; (iii) the Interfund Loans would not involve a greater risk than such other investments; (iv) the lending Fund would receive interest at a rate higher than it could otherwise obtain through such other investments; and (v) the borrowing Fund would pay interest at a rate lower than otherwise available to it under its bank loan agreements or through custodian overdrafts. Moreover, applicants assert that the other terms and conditions that applicants propose also would effectively preclude the possibility of any Fund obtaining an undue advantage over any other Fund.
4. Section 17(a)(1) of the Act generally prohibits an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of such a person, from selling securities or other property to the investment company. Section 17(a)(2) of the Act generally prohibits an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of such a person, from purchasing securities or other property from the investment company. Section 12(d)(1) of the Act generally prohibits a registered investment company from purchasing or otherwise acquiring any security issued by any other investment company except in accordance with the limitations set forth in that section.
5. Applicants state that the obligation of a borrowing Fund to repay an Interfund Loan could be deemed to constitute a security for the purposes of sections 17(a)(1) and 12(d)(1) of the Act.
6. Applicants state that section 12(d)(1) was intended to prevent the pyramiding of investment companies in order to avoid imposing on investors additional and duplicative costs and fees attendant upon multiple layers of investment companies. Applicants submit that the proposed Interfund Lending Program does not involve these abuses. Applicants note that there will be no duplicative costs or fees to the Funds or their shareholders, and that each Adviser will receive no additional compensation for its services in administering the Interfund Lending Program. Applicants also note that the purpose of the proposed Interfund Lending Program is to provide economic benefits for all the participating Funds and their shareholders. Section 18(f)(1) of the Act prohibits open-end investment companies from issuing any senior security except that a company is permitted to borrow from any bank, provided, that immediately after the borrowing, there is asset coverage of at least 300 per centum for all borrowings of the company. Under section 18(g) of the Act, the term “senior security” generally includes any bond, debenture, note or similar obligation or instrument constituting a security and evidencing indebtedness. Applicants request exemptive relief under section 6(c) from section 18(f)(1) to the limited extent necessary to implement the Interfund Lending Program (because the lending Funds are not banks).
7. Applicants believe that granting relief under section 6(c) is appropriate because the Funds would remain subject to the requirement of section 18(f)(1) that all borrowings of a Fund, including combined Interfund Loans and bank borrowings, have at least 300% asset coverage. Based on the conditions and safeguards described in the application, applicants also submit that to allow the Funds to borrow from other Funds pursuant to the proposed Interfund Lending Program is consistent with the purposes and policies of section 18(f)(1).
8. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act generally prohibit an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of such a person, when acting as principal, from effecting any joint transaction in which the investment company participates, unless, upon application, the transaction has been approved by the Commission. Rule 17d-1(b) under the Act provides that in passing upon an application filed under the rule, the Commission will consider whether the participation of the registered investment company in a joint enterprise, joint arrangement or profit sharing plan on the basis proposed is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of the other participants.
9. Applicants assert that the purpose of section 17(d) is to avoid overreaching by and unfair advantage to insiders. Applicants assert that the Interfund Lending Program is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act in that it offers both reduced borrowing costs and enhanced returns on loaned funds to all participating Funds and their shareholders. Applicants note that each Fund would have an equal opportunity to borrow and lend on equal terms consistent with its investment policies and fundamental investment limitations. Applicants assert that each Fund's participation in the proposed Interfund Lending Program would be on terms that are no different from or less advantageous than that of other participating Funds.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. The Interfund Loan Rate will be the average of the Repo Rate and the Bank Loan Rate.
2. On each business day, when an interfund loan is to be made, the Interfund Lending Program Team will compare the Bank Loan Rate with the Repo Rate and will make cash available for Interfund Loans only if the Interfund Loan Rate is: (i) More favorable to the lending Fund than the Repo Rate; and (ii) more favorable to the borrowing Fund than the Bank Loan Rate.
3. If a Fund has outstanding Bank Borrowings, any Interfund Loan to the Fund will: (i) Be at an interest rate equal to or lower than the interest rate of any outstanding bank loan; (ii) be secured at least on an equal priority basis with at least an equivalent percentage of collateral to loan value as any outstanding bank loan that requires collateral; (iii) have a maturity no longer than any outstanding bank loan (and in any event not over seven days); and (iv) provide that, if an event of default occurs under any agreement evidencing an outstanding bank loan to the Fund, that the event of default by the Fund, will automatically (without need for action or notice by the lending Fund) constitute an immediate event of default under the Interfund Lending Agreement which both (aa) entitles the lending Fund to call the Interfund Loan immediately and exercise all rights with respect to any collateral and (bb) causes the call to be made if the lending bank exercises its right to call its loan under its agreement with the borrowing Fund.
4. A Fund may borrow on an unsecured basis through the Interfund Lending Program only if the relevant borrowing Fund's outstanding borrowings from all sources immediately after the interfund borrowing total 10% or less of its total assets, provided that if the borrowing Fund has a secured loan outstanding from any other lender, including but not limited to another, the lending Fund's Interfund Loan will be secured on at least an equal priority basis with at least an equivalent percentage of collateral to loan value as any outstanding loan that requires collateral. If a borrowing Fund's total outstanding borrowings immediately after an Interfund Loan would be greater than 10% of its total assets, the Fund may borrow through the Interfund Lending Program only on a secured basis. A Fund may not borrow through the Interfund Lending Program or from any other source if its total outstanding borrowings immediately after the borrowing would be more than 33
5. Before any Fund that has outstanding interfund borrowings may, through additional borrowings, cause its outstanding borrowings from all sources to exceed 10% of its total assets, it must
6. No Fund may lend to another Fund through the Interfund Lending Program if the loan would cause its aggregate outstanding loans through the Interfund Lending Program to exceed 15% of its current net assets at the time of the loan.
7. A Fund's Interfund Loans to any one Fund shall not exceed 5% of the lending Fund's net assets.
8. The duration of Interfund Loans will be limited to the time required to receive payment for securities sold, but in no event more than seven days. Loans effected within seven days of each other will be treated as separate loan transactions for purposes of this condition.
9. A Fund's borrowings through the Interfund Lending Program, as measured on the day when the most recent loan was made, will not exceed the greater of 125% of the Fund's total net cash redemptions for the preceding seven calendar days or 102% of the Fund's sales fails for the preceding seven calendar days.
10. Each Interfund Loan may be called on one business day's notice by a lending Fund and may be repaid on any day by a borrowing Fund.
11. A Fund's participation in the Interfund Lending Program must be consistent with its investment objectives, policies, limitations and organizational documents.
12. The Interfund Lending Program Team will calculate total Fund borrowing and lending demand through the Interfund Lending Program, and allocate Interfund Loans on an equitable basis among the Funds, without the intervention of any portfolio manager. The Interfund Lending Program Team will not solicit cash for the Interfund Lending Program from any Fund or prospectively publish or disseminate loan demand data to portfolio managers. The Interfund Lending Program Team will invest all amounts remaining after satisfaction of borrowing demand in accordance with the standing instructions of the relevant portfolio manager or such remaining amounts will be invested directly by the portfolio managers of the Funds.
13. The Interfund Lending Program Team will monitor the Interfund Loan Rate and the other terms and conditions of the Interfund Loans and will make a quarterly report to the Boards concerning the participation of the Funds in the Interfund Lending Program and the terms and other conditions of any extensions of credit under the Interfund Lending Program.
14. Each Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will:
(i) Review, no less frequently than quarterly, the participation of each Fund's it oversees in the Interfund Lending Program during the preceding quarter for compliance with the conditions of any order permitting such participation;
(ii) establish the Bank Loan Rate formula used to determine the interest rate on Interfund Loans;
(iii) review, no less frequently than annually, the continuing appropriateness of the Bank Loan Rate formula; and
(iv) review, no less frequently than annually, the continuing appropriateness of the participation in the Interfund Lending Program by each Fund it oversees.
15. Each Fund will maintain and preserve for a period of not less than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which any transaction by it under the Interfund Lending Program occurred, the first two years in an easily accessible place, written records of all such transactions setting forth a description of the terms of the transaction, including the amount, the maturity and the Interfund Loan Rate, the rate of interest available at the time each Interfund Loan is made on overnight repurchase agreements and Bank Borrowings, and such other information presented to the Boards of the Funds in connection with the review required by conditions 13 and 14.
16. In the event an Interfund Loan is not paid according to its terms and the default is not cured within two business days from its maturity or from the time the lending Fund makes a demand for payment under the provisions of the Interfund Lending Agreement, the Adviser to the lending Fund promptly will refer the loan for arbitration to an independent arbitrator selected by the Board of any Fund involved in the loan who will serve as arbitrator of disputes concerning Interfund Loans. If the dispute involves Funds that do not have a common Board, the Board of each Fund will select an independent arbitrator that is satisfactory to each Fund. The arbitrator will resolve any dispute promptly, and the arbitrator's decision will be binding on both Funds. The arbitrator will submit, at least annually, a written report to the Board of each Fund setting forth a description of the nature of any dispute and the actions taken by the Funds to resolve the dispute.
17. The Adviser will prepare and submit to the Board for review an initial report describing the operations of the Interfund Lending Program and the procedures to be implemented to ensure that all Funds are treated fairly. After the commencement of the Interfund Lending Program, the Adviser will report on the operations of the Interfund Lending Program at the Board's quarterly meetings. Each Fund's chief compliance officer, as defined in rule 38a-1(a)(4) under the Act, shall prepare an annual report for its Board each year that the Fund participates in the Interfund Lending Program, that evaluates the Fund's compliance with the terms and conditions of the application and the procedures established to achieve such compliance. Each Fund's chief compliance officer will also annually file a certification pursuant to Item 77Q3 of Form N-SAR as such Form may be revised, amended or superseded from time to time, for each year that the Fund participates in the Interfund Lending Program, that certifies that the Fund and its Adviser have implemented procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of the order. In particular, such certification will address procedures designed to achieve the following objectives:
(a) That the Interfund Loan Rate will be higher than the Repo Rate but lower than the Bank Loan Rate;
(b) compliance with the collateral requirements as set forth in the application;
(c) compliance with the percentage limitations on interfund borrowing and lending;
(d) allocation of interfund borrowing and lending demand in an equitable manner and in accordance with procedures established by the Board; and
(e) that the Interfund Loan Rate does not exceed the interest rate on any third party borrowings of a borrowing Fund at the time of the Interfund Loan.
Additionally, each Fund's independent public accountants, in connection with their audit examination of the Fund, will review the operation of the Interfund Lending Program for compliance with the conditions of the application and their review will form the basis, in part, of the auditor's report on internal accounting controls in Form N-SAR.
18. No Fund will participate in the Interfund Lending Program, upon receipt of requisite regulatory approval, unless it has fully disclosed in its registration statement on Form N-1A (or any successor form adopted by the Commission) all material facts about its intended participation.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order under section 61(a)(3)(B) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”).
Applicant, Medallion Financial Corp., requests an order approving a proposal to grant certain stock options to directors who are not also employees or officers of Applicant (the “Eligible Directors”) under its 2015 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan (the “Director Plan”).
The application was filed on May 12, 2015, and amended on September 25, 2015 and January 14, 2016.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving Applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on February 26, 2016, and should be accompanied by proof of service on Applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicant, 437 Madison Avenue, 38th Floor, New York, New York 10022.
Deepak T. Pai, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6876, or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Chief Counsel).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicant, a Delaware corporation, is a business development company (“BDC”) within the meaning of section 2(a)(48) of the Act.
2. Applicant requests an order under section 61(a)(3)(B) of the Act approving its proposal to grant certain stock options under the Director Plan to its Eligible Directors.
3. Applicant's Eligible Directors currently are eligible to receive stock options under the 2006 Amended Director Plan and will be eligible to receive options under the Director Plan on the Order Date. Under the Director Plan, a maximum of 300,000 shares of Applicant's common stock, in the aggregate, may be issued to Eligible Directors and there is no limit on the number of shares of Applicant's common stock that may be issued to any one Eligible Director. The Director Plan provides for automatic grants of stock options to Eligible Directors. At each annual meeting of Applicant's stockholders after the Order Date, each Eligible Director elected or re-elected at such meeting to a three-year term will automatically be granted an option to purchase 12,000 shares of Applicant's common stock. Upon the election, reelection or appointment of an Eligible Director to the Board other than at the
4. Under the terms of the Director Plan, the exercise price of an option will be the “Fair Market Value” of Applicant's common stock, which is the closing price of the common stock as reported in the Wall Street Journal, Northeast Edition, as quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market on the date of grant, or if no such market value exists, the fair market value of a share of common stock as determined by the Board pursuant to a reasonable method adopted in good faith for such purpose. Options granted under the Director Plan will expire ten years from the date of grant and may not be transferred other than by will or the laws of descent and distribution. Any Eligible Director holding exercisable options under the Director Plan who ceases to be an Eligible Director for any reason, other than permanent disability, death or removal for cause, may exercise the rights the director had under the options on the date the director ceased to be an Eligible Director for a period of up to three months following that date. No additional options held by the director will become exercisable after the three month period. In the event of removal of an Eligible Director for cause, all outstanding options held by such director shall terminate as of the date of the director's removal. Upon the permanent disability or death of an Eligible Director, those entitled to do so under the director's will or the laws of descent and distribution will have the right, at any time within twelve months after the date of permanent disability or death, to exercise in whole or in part any rights which were available to the director at the time of the director's permanent disability or death.
5. Applicant's officers and employees, including employee directors, are currently eligible to receive options under Applicant's Amended and Restated 2006 Employee Stock Option Plan (the “2006 Employee Plan”), which replaced the Amended and Restated 1996 Stock Option Plan (the “1996 Employee Plan”), which expired on May 21, 2006. Applicant's employees are also eligible to receive grants of restricted stock under its 2009 Employee Restricted Stock Plan (the “2009 Restricted Stock Plan”).
6. Under the Director Plan, the 2015 Restricted Stock Plan, the 2009 Restricted Stock Plan, the 2006 Amended Director Plan and the 2006 Employee Plan, an aggregate of 2,545,909 shares of Applicant's common stock have been reserved for issuance to Applicant's directors, officers and employees (300,000 shares are reserved for issuance under the Director Plan, 700,000 shares are reserved for issuance under the 2015 Restricted Stock Plan, 545,909 shares are reserved for issuance under the 2009 Restricted Stock Plan,
7. The amount of voting securities of Applicant that would, on the Order Date, result from the grant of all restricted stock issued or issuable under the 2009 Restricted Stock Plan and 2015 Restricted Stock Plan is 1,245,909 shares; from the exercise of all options issued or issuable to Applicant's directors under the Director Plan is 300,000 shares; from the exercise of all options issued or issuable to Applicant's directors under the 2006 Amended Director Plan is 153,000 shares; from the exercise of all options issued or issuable to Applicant's officers and employees under the 2006 Employee Plan is 422,520 shares; and from the exercise of all options issued or issuable to Applicant's officers and employees under the 1996 Employee Plan is 58,442 shares, which totals approximately 5.12%, 1.23%, 0.63%, 1.74%, and 0.24%, respectively, of the 24,346,693 shares of Applicant's common stock outstanding on December 31, 2015. This totals 2,179,871 shares in the aggregate, or approximately 8.95% of the 24,346,693 shares of Applicant's common stock outstanding on December 31, 2015.
1. Section 63(3) of the Act permits a BDC to sell its common stock at a price below current net asset value upon the exercise of any option issued in accordance with section 61(a)(3). Section 61(a)(3)(B) of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that a BDC may issue to its non-employee directors options to purchase its voting securities pursuant to an executive compensation plan, provided that: (a) The options expire by their terms within ten years; (b) the exercise price of the options is not less than the current market value of the underlying securities at the date of the issuance of the options, or if no market exists, the current net asset value of the voting securities; (c) the proposal to issue the options is authorized by the BDC's shareholders, and is approved by order of the Commission upon application; (d) the options are not transferable except for disposition by gift, will or intestacy; (e) no investment adviser of the BDC receives any compensation described in section 205(a)(1) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, except to the extent permitted by paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of that section; and (f) the BDC does not have a profit-sharing plan as described in section 57(n) of the Act.
2. In addition, section 61(a)(3) provides that the amount of the BDC's voting securities that would result from the exercise of all outstanding warrants, options, and rights at the time of issuance may not exceed 25% of the BDC's outstanding voting securities, except that if the amount of voting securities that would result from the exercise of all outstanding warrants, options, and rights issued to the BDC's directors, officers, and employees pursuant to any executive compensation plan would exceed 15% of the BDC's outstanding voting securities, then the total amount of voting securities that would result from the exercise of all
3. Applicant represents that its proposal to grant certain stock options to Eligible Directors under the Director Plan meets all the requirements of section 61(a)(3) of the Act. Applicant states that the Board is actively involved in the oversight of Applicant's affairs and that it relies extensively on the judgment and experience of its Board. In addition to their duties as Board members generally, Applicant states that the Eligible Directors provide guidance and advice on financial and operational issues, credit and loan policies, asset valuation and strategic direction, as well as serving on committees. Applicant believes that the availability of options under the Director Plan will provide significant at-risk incentives to Eligible Directors to remain on the Board and devote their best efforts to ensure Applicant's success. Applicant states that the options will provide a means for the Eligible Directors to increase their ownership interests in Applicant, thereby ensuring close alignment of their interests with those of Applicant and its stockholders. Applicant asserts that by providing incentives such as options, Applicant will be better able to maintain continuity in the Board's membership and to attract and retain the highly experienced, successful and motivated business and professional people who are critical to Applicant's success as a BDC.
4. As noted above, Applicant states that the amount of voting securities that would on the Order Date result from the grant of all restricted stock issued or issuable under the 2009 Restricted Stock Plan and 2015 Restricted Stock Plan and the exercise of all outstanding options issued or issuable to the directors, officers, and employees under the Director Plan, 2006 Amended Director Plan, the 2006 Employee Plan and the 1996 Employee Plan would be 2,179,871 shares of Applicant's common stock, or approximately 8.95% of Applicant's shares of common stock outstanding on December 31, 2015, which is below the percentage limitations in the Act. Applicant asserts that, given the relatively small amount of common stock issuable to Eligible Directors upon their exercise of options under the Director Plan, the exercise of such options would not, absent extraordinary circumstances, have a substantial dilutive effect on the net asset value of Applicant's common stock.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law, Department of State, hereby gives notice that the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Study Group of the Advisory Committee on Private International Law (ACPIL) will hold a public meeting. The ACPIL ODR Study Group will meet to discuss the next session of the UNCITRAL Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Working Group, scheduled for February 29 to March 4 in New York. This is not a meeting of the full Advisory Committee.
At the July 2015 plenary session of UNCITRAL, the ODR Working Group was instructed “to continue its work towards elaborating a non-binding descriptive document reflecting elements of an ODR process, on which elements the Working Group had previously reached consensus, excluding the question of the final stage of the ODR process (arbitration/non-arbitration).” Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, 48th Session (29 June-16 July 2015), A/70/17, para. 352. At its November 2015 session, the Working Group based its deliberations on a proposal for Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution submitted by Colombia and the United States. A/CN.9/WG.III/XXXII/CRP.3. The proposal by Colombia and the United States, as well as the documents for the upcoming session of the Working Group are available at the following link:
Data from the public is requested pursuant to Public Law 99-399 (Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986), as amended; Public Law 107-56 (USA PATRIOT Act); and E.O. 13356. The purpose of the collection is to validate the identity of individuals who enter Department facilities.
The data will be entered into the Visitor Access Control System (VACS- D) database. Please see the Security Records System of Records Notice (State-36) at
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork
The Department will accept comments from the public up to April 5, 2016.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
You must include the DS form number, information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to David Record at 2401 E Street NW., Fourteenth Floor, Washington, DC 20522, who may be reached on 202-261-8800 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from the Association of American Railroads. (WB463-18-1/15/16) for permission to use certain data from the Board's 2014 Carload Waybill Sample. A copy of this request may be obtained from the Office of Economics.
The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.
Louisiana Southern Railroad, L.L.C. (LAS), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to continue to lease from The Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS), and to operate, approximately 165.8 miles of rail line between: (1) A point 1,600 feet south of Highway 80 crossing, near Gibsland, La., and milepost B-192, near Pineville, La.; (2) milepost 83.5, at Sibley, La., and milepost 78.8, at Minden, La., on the Sibley Branch; (3) milepost 49.6, near Cullen, La., and milepost 78.8, at Minden on the Hope Subdivision; and (4) milepost 78.8, at Minden, and milepost B-102, near Bossier, La. on the Hope Subdivision.
In the verified notice, LAS states that LAS and KCS have recently entered into two amended and restated lease agreements
LAS has certified that its projected annual revenues as a result of this
LAS has also filed a petition for waiver of the 60-day advance labor notice requirement under 1150.42(e), asserting that: (1) No KCS employees will be affected because no KCS employees have performed operations or maintenance on the lines since 2005; and (2) no LAS employees will be affected because LAS will continue to provide the same service and perform the same maintenance as it has since 2005. LAS' waiver request will be addressed in a separate decision.
LAS states that the transaction is expected to be consummated on or shortly after the effective date of this notice. The Board will establish in the decision on the waiver request the earliest date this transaction may be consummated.
If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than February 12, 2016.
An original and ten copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35983, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on applicant's representative, Karl Morell, Karl Morell & Associates, 655 Fifteenth Street, Suite 225, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
According to LAS, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c).
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Seventeenth RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC) Meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the Seventeenth RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC) meeting.
The meeting will be held February 25, 2016 from 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at Delta Air Lines, Inc., New York City Room, 1010 Delta Blvd., Atlanta, GA 30354, Tel: (202) 330-0652.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC). The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability and registration is required. Please email
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA confirms its decision to exempt 54 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were effective on December 15, 2015. The exemptions expire on December 15, 2017.
Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On November 12, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal diabetes exemption applications from 54 individuals and requested comments from the public (80 FR 70067). The public comment period closed on December 14, 2015, and one comment was received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 54 applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The diabetes rule provides that “A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control” (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
These 54 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 41 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the November 12, 2015,
FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. Latu Anitoni stated that, in her opinion, drivers using insulin are safer due to the monitoring the condition requires, and believes the exemptions should be granted.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the applicants in the exemption document and they include the following: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
Based upon its evaluation of the 54 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above 949 CFR 391.64(b)):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from two individuals for exemptions from the following two Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) which prohibit operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. Section 391.41(b)(8) of the FMCSRs prohibit operation of a commercial motor vehicle by persons with either a clinical diagnosis of a condition that is likely to cause a loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to operate a CMV safely. Section 391.41(b)(9) of the FMCSRs prohibit operation of a commercial motor vehicle by persons with a mental, nervous, organic, functional disease, or psychiatric disorder likely to interfere with his/her ability to drive a commercial motor vehicle safely. If granted, the exemption would enable these individuals who have been diagnosed with narcolepsy and are receiving medical treatment to operate CMVs for 2 years in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before March 7, 2016
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2012-0081 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket ID for this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
Christine Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001, or via email at
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The Agency may grant an exemption subject to specified terms and conditions. The decision of the Agency must be published in the
FMCSA provides medical advisory criteria in the Medical Examination Report at 49 CFR 391.43 for use by medical examiners in determining whether drivers with certain medical conditions should be certified to operate commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce. The advisory criteria for 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), indicates that if an individual has had a sudden episode of a non-epileptic seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause that did not require anti-seizure medication, the decision whether that person's condition is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or loss of ability to control a CMV should be made on an individual basis by the medical examiner in consultation with the treating physician.
In those individual cases where a driver had a seizure or an episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical condition (
The advisory criteria for 49 CFR 391.41(b)(9), indicates that a variety of functional disorders can cause drowsiness, dizziness, confusion, weakness or paralysis that may lead to incoordination, inattention, loss of functional control and susceptibility to accidents while driving.
Mr. Mertens is a 26 year old Class B CDL holder in Pennsylvania. An October 6, 2015 report from his sleep medicine physician says (Mr. Martens) was diagnosed with narcolepsy in 2011. His physician report further states that Mr. Mertens is treated with Nuvigil daily and has no problems with daytime somnolence. He has never had any history of sleepiness while driving, cataplexy or loss of consciousness. He understands that he has to continue to have adequate total sleep time and take his Nuvigil as prescribed every single day. His employer provided a letter stating that throughout his eight years of employment he has never had any problem performing his job duties because of his narcolepsy.
Mr. Vaughn is a 31 year old non-CDL holder from Georgia. An August 27, 2015 letter from his neurologist reports that as recently as July 13, 2015, Mr. Vaugh's sleep apnea is managed on CPAP and he is on medication to help him maintain wakefulness during the daytime. His neurologist supports Mr. Vaughn's request for an exemption which would allow him to operate commercial motor vehicles as he is on medication. Mr. Vaughn reports that he takes the medication Nuvigil.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the applications for exemption described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated earlier in the notice.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA confirms its decision to exempt 41 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were effective on November 17, 2015. The exemptions expire on November 17, 2017.
Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On October 15, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal diabetes exemption applications from 41 individuals and requested comments from the public (80 FR 632155). The public comment period closed on November 16, 2015, and no comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 41 applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The diabetes rule provides that “A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control” (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded
These 41 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 39 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the October 15, 2015,
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the applicants in the exemption document and they include the following: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
Based upon its evaluation of the 41 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above 949 CFR 391.64(b)):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA confirms its decision to exempt 44 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were effective on November 21, 2015. The exemptions expire on November 21, 2017.
Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On October 21, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal diabetes exemption applications from 44 individuals and requested comments from the public (80 FR 63863). The public comment period closed on November 20, 2015, and no comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 44 applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The diabetes rule provides that “A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control” (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
These 44 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 34 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the October 21, 2015,
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the applicants in the exemption document and they include the following: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
Based upon its evaluation of the 44 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above 949 CFR 391.64(b)):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA confirms its decision to exempt 44 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were effective on December 29, 2015. The exemptions expire on December 29, 2017.
Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On November 27, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal diabetes exemption applications from 44 individuals and requested comments from the public (80 FR 74190). The public comment period closed on December 28, 2015, and no comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 44 applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The diabetes rule provides that “A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control” (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
These 44 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 32 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the November 27, 2015,
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the ability of
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the applicants in the exemption document and they include the following: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
Based upon its evaluation of the 44 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above 949 CFR 391.64(b)):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Rescind Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
FTA in cooperation with Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) is issuing this notice to advise the public that the NOI to prepare an EIS for the Virginia Beach Transit Extension Study (VBTES) is being rescinded.
Mr. Ryan Long, Community Planner, Federal Transit Administration Region III, 1760 Market St, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19103, phone 215-656-7051, email
FTA, as the lead Federal agency, and HRT, as the project sponsor, published an NOI in the
HRT was intending to seek Capital Investment Grant Program (CIG) funding from FTA for one or more of the alternatives that were examined in the Draft EIS. The CIG program, more commonly known as the New Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity program, involves a multi-year, multi-step process that project sponsors must complete before a project is eligible for funding. The steps in the process and the basic requirements of the program can be found on FTA's Web site at
Since FTA approval of the Draft EIS on March 3, 2015, HRT has re-examined funding options and elected to not pursue the CIG program or other Federal transportation funding. Therefore, FTA is rescinding the August 14, 2013 NOI.
Comments and questions concerning this notice should be directed to FTA at the address provided above.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA); DOT.
Notice; issuance of advisory bulletin.
PHMSA is issuing this advisory bulletin to remind all owners and operators of underground storage facilities used for the storage of natural gas, as defined in 49 CFR part 192, to consider the overall integrity of the facilities to ensure the safety of the public and operating personnel and to protect the environment. Operators are reminded to review their operations to identify the potential of facility leaks and failures caused by corrosion, chemical damage, mechanical damage, or other material deficiencies in piping, tubing, casing, valves, and associated facilities and the importance of reviewing the location and operations of shut-off and isolation systems and reviewing and updating emergency plans as necessary.
Operators of pipelines subject to regulation by PHMSA should contact Mr. Kenneth Lee at 202-366-2694 or email to:
Intrastate gas pipeline and underground storage facility operators should contact the appropriate state pipeline safety authority. A list of state pipeline safety authorities is provided at:
On October 23, 2015, Southern California Gas Company's (SoCal Gas) Aliso Canyon Well SS25 failed, causing a sustained and uncontrolled natural gas leak in an area known as Porter Ranch in Los Angeles, California. At the present time, the well leak is believed to be from the subsurface (downhole) well casing. The well was drilled in 1953 and was later converted to natural gas storage well in 1972. Over 4,400 households (families) have been relocated due to the natural gas odorant (mercaptans) according to the Aliso Canyon Incident Command briefing report issued on February 1, 2016. On January 6, 2016, California Governor Jerry Brown issued a proclamation declaring the Aliso Canyon incident a state emergency. After repeated unsuccessful attempts to contain the leak, a relief well is being drilled to plug the leaking well. The Aliso Canyon underground storage field, which can store up to 86 billion cubic feet of natural gas, has 115 storage wells, and is the second largest storage facility of its kind in the United States. The root cause of this failure is the subject of ongoing investigations and assessments and the root cause analysis is being conducted by an independent third party expert firm. PHMSA is working closely with the State of California to provide technical assistance and to support State regulatory agencies related to their response and oversight activities.
Since 2001 several accidents involving underground gas storage facilities have occurred and two of the more extensive accidents that occurred in Texas and Kansas are highlighted below. On August 19, 2004, the Market Hub Partners Moss Bluff storage facility located in Liberty County, Texas, had a well control incident and natural gas fire at Cavern #1. Over a period of six and one-half days, approximately 6 billion cubic feet of natural gas in the cavern was released and burned. The fire eventually self-extinguished, and late on August 26, 2004, installation of a blowout prevention valve was completed, effectively placing the well back under control. The Moss Bluff storage facility was comprised of three separated underground caverns leached out of a salt formation beneath the surface; a compressor station to help move natural gas into and out of the caverns; well head assemblies on each of the caverns for operational control purposes; and natural gas, fresh water and salt water (brine) piping and related facilities to facilitate transportation and/or holding of those materials A detailed investigation by company personnel and outside consultants determined the accident was caused by a separation of the 8
On January 17 and 18, 2001, another accident occurred at the Yaggy underground natural gas storage field operated by Kansas Gas Service, where a wellbore failure which led to a series of gas explosions in Hutchinson, Kansas. The storage field injected natural gas at a depth of 600 to 900 feet underground into salt caverns. Gas leaked from the storage field well production casing, migrated approximately nine miles underground, and then traveled to the surface through old brine, or salt wells, in the Hutchinson, Kansas area. An explosion in downtown Hutchinson destroyed two businesses, damaged 26 other businesses, and killed two persons in a mobile home park. Approximately 143 million cubic feet of natural gas leaked from the storage field.
In this Advisory Bulletin, PHMSA recommends that all operators of underground storage facilities used for the storage of natural gas, as defined in 49 CFR parts 192, have processes, procedures, mitigation measures, periodic assessments and reassessments, and emergency plans to maintain the safety and integrity of all wells and associated storage facilities whether operating, idled, or plugged. These processes and procedures should take into consideration the age, construction, maximum operating pressures, operating and maintenance history, product, corrosion, casing and tubing condition (including chemical and mechanical damage), cement condition and depths or heights, safety valves (surface and subsurface), operation of each well, and the amount of time elapsed since the most recent assessment.
Operators should have comprehensive and up-to-date processes, procedures, mitigation measures, periodic assessments and reassessments, and emergency plans in place to maintain the safety and integrity of all underground storage wells and associated facilities whether operating, idled, or plugged. Operators must adhere to applicable State regulations for the permitting, drilling, completion, and operation of storage wells. In
In addition, operator's operating and maintenance (O&M) processes and procedures should be reviewed and updated at least annually, unless operational inspections for integrity warrant shorter review periods. O&M processes and procedures should include data collection and integration, risk assessments, monitoring, operational limits, mitigation measures, and record keeping for any underground storage facility threat that could impact public safety, operating personnel, or the environment due to leakage, failure, or abnormal operating conditions whether above ground or underground. At a minimum, operator actions should include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Operators should verify that the pressure required to inject intended natural gas volumes, including any maximum treating and stimulation pressures for the underground storage well, does not exceed the design pressure limits of the reservoir, wells, wellheads, piping, casing, tubing, or associated facilities, and document such verification.
2. The operator should monitor all wells for the presence of annular gas or liquids by measuring and recording annular pressure, including between casing and tubing strings at the wellhead, and any known annular flow on a periodic basis.
3. The operator should inspect the wellhead assembly and attached pipelines for each of the wells used in an underground storage facility on a periodic basis, with the frequency of the inspections defined by the operator's risk assessment. This inspection should include leak detection technology and monitoring of casing pressure changes at the wellhead. The operator's selection and usage of leak detection technology should take into consideration detection limits for natural gas or any liquids, response time, reproducibility, accuracy, distance from source, background lighting conditions, geography, and meteorology.
4. The operator should conduct periodic functional tests of all surface and subsurface safety valve systems and wellhead pipeline isolation valve(s) for proper function and ability to shut-off or isolate the well as required for operational and emergency situations. Deficiencies, test failures, and equipment that do not meet functional specifications should be repaired or replaced promptly in order to assure the well's ability to control and isolate natural gas flows from the reservoir and well. Inoperable surface and subsurface safety valves on storage well(s) should be either repaired, removed or replaced, the well temporarily plugged, or alternative equivalent safety measures implemented.
5. When evaluating the need for subsurface safety valves on new, removed, or replaced tubing strings or production casing, operators should perform risk assessments in a manner that reviews at a minimum the API RP 1171 criteria. Where subsurface safety valves are not installed on wells, risk assessments should be used to inform decisions on integrity inspection frequencies and reassessment intervals, and mitigation criteria and procedures for the well production casing and tubing should be evaluated and implemented as necessary.
6. Operators should conduct ongoing assessments for the verification and demonstration of the mechanical integrity of each well and related piping and equipment used in the underground storage facility. The relevant factors to consider in verifying and demonstrating well integrity should include as a minimum: Well service life history; design; construction; maximum operating pressures (injection, withdrawal, maximum treating and stimulation); product, corrosion, casing and tubing condition; cement condition and depths or heights; safety valves (surface and subsurface); operation of each well; and the time interval since the most recent assessment and past assessment findings.
7. Operators should have a corrosion monitoring and integrity evaluation program that includes the following:
(i) Evaluation of casing and tubular integrity and identification of defects caused by corrosion or other chemical or mechanical damage;
(ii) Corrosion potential of wellbore-produced fluids and solids, including the impact of operating pressure on the corrosion potential of wellbore fluids and analysis of partial pressures;
(iii) Corrosion potential of annular and any packer fluid;
(iv) Corrosion potential of current flows associated with cathodic protection systems;
(v) Corrosion potential of all formation fluids, including fluids in formations above the storage zone;
(vi) Corrosion potential of un-cemented casing annuli, including static liquid levels;
(vii) Corrosion potential of pipelines and other production facilities attendant to the underground storage facility including the corrosion potential of adverse-current flows associated with their cathodic protection systems; and
(viii) Periodic usage of the appropriate well log evaluations (such as corrosion, cement bond, temperature, noise, caliper and other appropriate assessment logs for integrity evaluations of the production casing and tubing strings) to determine well integrity, mitigation measures, and reassessment intervals to maintain the pressure rating and flow isolation characteristics of the well for all downhole pipe, cement, and any other isolation equipment.
8. Procedures for the evaluation of well and attendant storage facilities should include analysis of facility flow erosion, hydrate potential, individual facility component capacity and fluid disposal capability at intended gas flow rates and pressures, and analysis of the specific impacts that the intended operating pressure range could have on the corrosive potential of fluids in the system.
9. Identification of potential threats and hazards associated with operation of the underground storage facility should include the following:
(i) Evaluation of risk (likelihood of events and consequences related to the events);
(ii) Determination of a risk ranking to develop and implement preventive and mitigative measures;
(iii) Documentation of risk evaluation and decision basis for preventive and mitigative measures implemented;
(iv) Provision for data feedback and validation; and
(v) Regular, periodic risk assessment reviews to update information, and evaluate risk management effectiveness.
10. For ongoing verification and demonstration of the integrity of the underground storage reservoir or cavern, operators should use appropriate monitoring techniques such as the monitoring of pressure and periodic pressure surveys, inventory (injection & withdrawal of all products), product levels, cavern subsidence, and the findings from adjacent production and water wells, and observation wells used to monitor underground storage including any integrity changes.
11. Emergency procedures should identify the types of emergencies for which the operator should notify public emergency response officials, personnel training, periodic communication with local emergency response officials, identification of the local area impacted, notices to the public, and identification of any third-party service providers or technical experts needed in the event of an emergency. Emergency procedures should be reviewed, conducted, and updated at least annually.
12. Records of the processes, procedures, assessments, reassessments, and mitigation measures required should be maintained for the life of the storage well.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC).
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to comment on a revision to this information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is finalizing revisions to a regulatory reporting requirement for national banks and federal savings associations titled, “Company-Run Annual Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions with Total Consolidated Assets of $50 Billion or More under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.” The OCC also is giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.
Comments must be received by March 7, 2016.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0319, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Additionally, please send a copy of your comments by mail to: OCC Desk Officer, [1557-0319], U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503, or by email to:
Shaquita Merritt or Mary H. Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officers, (202) 649-5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20219. In addition, copies of the templates referenced in this notice can be found on the OCC's Web site under News and Issuances (
The OCC is requesting comment on the following revision to an approved information collection:
In 2012, the OCC first implemented the reporting templates referenced in the final rule.
The OCC intends to use the data collected to assess the reasonableness of the stress test results of covered institutions and to provide forward-looking information to the OCC regarding a covered institution's capital adequacy. The OCC also may use the results of the stress tests to determine whether additional analytical techniques and exercises could be appropriate to identify, measure, and monitor risks at the covered institution. The stress test results are expected to support ongoing improvement in a covered institution's stress testing practices with respect to its internal assessments of capital adequacy and overall capital planning.
The OCC recognizes that many covered institutions with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more are required to submit reports using Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) reporting form FR Y-14A.
The revisions to the DFAST-14A reporting templates consist of the following:
• Bank-specific scenario: Covered institutions would be required to submit bank-specific baseline and stress scenarios and projections for 2017 and will have the option to do so for 2016;
• Largest counterparty default: For the largest trading covered institutions that also submit the Global Market Shock scenario, they would be required to assume the default of their largest counterparty in the supervisory severely adverse and adverse scenarios for 2017 and will have the option to do so for 2016;
• Advanced approaches banks: (1) Delay incorporation of the supplemental leverage ratio for one year and (2) indefinitely defer the use of the advance approaches for stress testing projections;
• Reporting Template and Supporting Documentation Changes: Clarifying instructions, adding data items, deleting data items, and redefining existing data items. This includes an expansion of the information collected in the scenario schedule. The proposed revisions also include a shift of the as-of date in accordance with modifications to the OCC's stress testing rule.
• These revisions also reflect the implementation of the final Basel III regulatory capital rule. On July 9, 2013, the OCC approved a joint final rule that will revise and replace the OCC's risk-based and leverage capital requirements to be consistent with agreements reached by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in “Basel III: A Global Regulatory Framework for More Resilient Banks and Banking Systems” (Basel III).
Covered institutions are required to submit bank-specific baseline and bank-specific stress scenarios and associated projections for the 2017 annual stress testing submission and may do so optionally for the 2016 annual stress testing submission. While supervisory scenarios provide a homogeneous scenario and a consistent market-wide view of the condition of the banking sector, these prescribed scenarios may not fully capture all of the risks that may be associated with a particular institution. The revisions require covered institutions to provide bank-specific baseline and bank-specific stress scenarios.
The OCC recognizes that the Board requires bank holding companies (BHCs) to submit BHC-specific baseline and stress scenarios and projections. Where OCC-covered institutions also submit BHC-specific scenarios, the OCC requires that bank-specific scenarios be consistent with the BHC-specific scenarios.
Covered institutions that currently complete the Global Market Shock will also be required to complete the Largest Counterparty Default component for the 2017 submission and have the option to do so for the 2016 submission. This is currently required by the Board, and the OCC is adopting a similar requirement to enhance consistency.
The supplementary leverage ratio requirement applies only to covered institutions that use the advanced approaches to calculate their minimum regulatory capital requirements. For these covered institutions, the revisions delay the incorporation of the supplementary leverage ratio in stress testing projections for one year. Under the revisions, these covered institutions are not required to include an estimate of the supplementary leverage ratio for the stress test cycle beginning on January 1, 2016. The Board has adopted a similar delay.
Covered institutions have noted that the use of advanced approaches in stress test rules would require significant resources and would introduce complexity and opacity. In light of the concerns raised by these covered institutions, and pending a review of how the stress test rules interact with the regulatory capital rules as described above, the revisions delay until further notice the use of the advanced approaches for calculating risk-based capital requirements for purposes of the capital plan and stress test rule.
The revisions to the DFAST-14A consist of clarifying instructions, adding and removing schedules, adding, deleting, and modifying existing data items, and altering the as-of dates. These
This schedule has been removed in accordance with the elimination of the use of the tier 1 common ratio, effective for the 2016 DFAST submission. However, in order to mitigate operational issues and allow for appropriate time to adjust internal systems to accommodate changes this schedule remains part of the technical XML instructions for the 2016 DFAST submission.
This schedule has been modified to increase consistency with the FFIEC 102. Specifically, the items of the existing market risk-weighted asset portion have been replaced with the appropriate items from the FFIEC 102. There are also a number of other technical changes; some will be required for the 2016 DFAST submission and others will be required for the 2017 submission. See the final instructions for specific details.
The OCC has removed certain items related to tier 1 common capital, effective for the 2016 DFAST submission. However, in order to mitigate operational issues and allow for appropriate time to adjust internal systems to accommodate changes, this schedule remains part of the technical XML instructions for the DFAST 2016 submission. Additionally, effective for the 2017 DFAST submission (previously proposed to be effective for the 2016 DFAST submission), the OCC has added one item that captures the aggregate non-significant investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions in the form of common stock and separating two items related to deferred tax assets into the amount before valuation allowances and the associated valuation allowance. The additional information from these changes results in two existing items converting to derived items based on the additional information.
This schedule has been removed to reduce reporting burden, effective for the 2017 DFAST submission.
This schedule has been removed to reduce reporting burden, effective for the 2017 DFAST submission.
In order to fully align the schedule with the stress scenarios, the beta information will be collected according to the scenario instead of the current “normal environment” requirement, effective for the 2016 DFAST submission. The Board has delayed implementation of this change, and in order to maintain consistency between the DFAST-14A and the FR Y-14A, the effective date of all modifications to the PPNR Metrics schedule will be delayed until the 2017 DFAST submission.
The OCC has added a requirement to use the existing summary schedule to collect the net effects of an intended business plan change on a respondent's asset, liability, and capital projections.
This schedule has been removed to reduce reporting burden effective for the 2016 DFAST submission. Aggregate counterparty credit risk information will continue to be obtained through the Summary Schedule (Schedule A).
Information about additional scenarios that are used by covered institutions is currently submitted in a format with limited structure, which makes it difficult for the OCC to evaluate. As such, the revisions require that covered institutions provide three more historical quarters in addition to the currently required most recent historical quarter of actual data values for each additional variable submitted. The revisions also provide additional instructions on variable naming conventions and other appropriate standardizations in order to facilitate more streamlined electronic processing of the data. In addition to the proposed schedule, the OCC is adding three new items to this final schedule in order to provide further standardized classification system for each variable submitted.
The OCC has modified this schedule by removing projected year six from the projection period.
The OCC has modified this schedule by removing line items corresponding to the general risk-based capital rules.
The OCC believes that the systems covered institutions use to prepare the FR Y-14 reporting templates to submit to the Board will also be used to prepare the reporting templates described in this notice. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments continue to be invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the 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.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC).
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, 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 a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled, “Fiduciary Activities.” The OCC also is giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.
You should submit written comments by March 7, 2016.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0140, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, mail stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Additionally, please send a copy of your comments by mail to: OCC Desk Officer, 1557-0140, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503, or by email to:
Shaquita Merritt, Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
Pursuant to the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the OCC is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the following information collection:
Twelve CFR 9.8 and 150.410-150.430 require that national banks and FSAs document the establishment and termination of each fiduciary account and maintain adequate records. Records must be retained for a period of three years from the later of the termination of the account or the termination of any litigation. The records must be separate and distinct from other records of the institution.
Twelve CFR 9.9 and 12 CFR 150.480 require national banks and FSAs to note the results of an audit (including significant actions taken as a result of the audit) in the minutes of the board of directors. National banks and FSAs that adopt a continuous audit system must note the results of all discrete audits performed since the last audit report (including significant actions taken as a result of the audits) in the minutes of the board of directors at least once during each calendar year.
Twelve CFR 9.17(a) and 150.530 require that a national bank or FSA seeking to surrender its fiduciary powers file with the OCC a certified copy of the resolution of its board of directors evidencing that intent.
Twelve CFR 9.18(b)(1) (and 12 CFR 150.260 by cross-reference) require national banks and FSAs to establish and maintain each CIF in accordance with a written plan approved by the board of directors or a committee authorized by the board. The plan must include provisions relating to:
• Investment powers and policies with respect to the fund;
• Allocation of income, profits, and losses;
• Fees and expenses that will be charged to the fund and to participating accounts;
• Terms and conditions regarding admission and withdrawal of participating accounts;
• Audits of participating accounts;
• Basis and method of valuing assets in the fund;
• Expected frequency for income distribution to participating accounts;
• Minimum frequency for valuation of fund assets;
• Amount of time following a valuation date during which the valuation must be made;
• Bases upon which the institution may terminate the fund; and
• Any other matters necessary to define clearly the rights of participating accounts.
Twelve CFR 9.18(b)(1) (and 150.260 by cross-reference) require that a national bank or FSA make a copy of any CIF plan available for public inspection at its main office and provide a copy of the plan to any person who requests it.
Twelve CFR 9.18(b)(4)(iii)(E) (and 150.260 by cross-reference) require that national banks and FSAs adopt portfolio and issuer qualitative standards and concentration restrictions for short-term investment funds (STIFs), a type of CIF.
Twelve CFR 9.18(b)(4)(iii)(F) (and 150.260 by cross-reference) require that national banks and FSAs adopt liquidity standards and include provisions that address contingency funding needs for STIFs.
Twelve CFR 9.18(b)(4)(iii)(G) (and 150.260 by cross-reference) require that national banks and FSAs adopt shadow pricing procedures for STIFs that calculate the extent of difference, if any, of the mark-to-market net asset value
Twelve CFR 9.18(b)(4)(iii)(H) (and 150.260 by cross-reference) require that national banks and FSAs adopt, for STIFs, procedures for stress testing the STIF's ability to maintain a stable net asset value per participating interest and provide for reporting the results.
Twelve CFR 9.18(b)(4)(iii)(I) (and 150.260 by cross-reference) require that national banks and FSAs adopt, for STIFs, procedures that require a national bank or FSA to disclose to the OCC and to STIF participants within five business days after each calendar month-end the following information about the fund: total assets under management; mark-to-market and amortized cost net asset values; dollar-weighted average portfolio maturity; dollar-weighted average portfolio life maturity as of the last business day of the prior calendar month; and certain other security-level information for each security held.
Twelve CFR 9.18(b)(4)(iii)(J) (and 150.260 by cross-reference) require that national banks and FSAs adopt, for STIFs, procedures that require a national bank or FSA that manages a STIF to notify the OCC prior to or within one business day thereafter of certain events.
Twelve CFR 9.18(b)(4)(iii)(K) (and 150.260 by cross-reference) require that national banks and FSAs adopt, for STIFs, certain procedures in the event that the STIF has repriced its net asset value below $0.995 per participating interest.
Twelve CFR 9.18(b)(4)(iii)(L) (and 150.260 by cross-reference) require that national banks and FSAs adopt, for STIFs, procedures for initiating liquidation of a STIF upon the suspension or limitation of withdrawals as a result of redemptions.
Twelve CFR 9.18(b)(6)(ii) (and 150.260 by cross-reference) require, for CIFs, that national banks and FSAs, at least once during each 12-month period, prepare a financial report of the fund based on the audit required by 12 CFR 9.18(b)(6)(i). The report must disclose the fund's fees and expenses in a manner consistent with applicable state law in the state in which the national bank or FSA maintains the fund and must contain:
• A list of investments in the fund showing the cost and current market value of each investment;
• A statement covering the period after the previous report showing the following (organized by type of investment):
○ A summary of purchases (with costs);
○ A summary of sales (with profit or loss and any investment change);
○ Income and disbursements; and
○ An appropriate notation of any investments in default.
Twelve CFR 9.18(b)(6)(iv) (and 150.260 by cross-reference) require that a national bank or FSA managing a CIF provide a copy of the financial report, or provide notice that a copy of the report is available upon request without charge, to each person who ordinarily would receive a regular periodic accounting with respect to each participating account. The national bank or FSA may provide a copy to prospective customers. In addition, the national bank or FSA must provide a copy of the report upon request to any person for a reasonable charge.
Twelve CFR 9.18(c)(5) (and 150.260 by cross-reference) require that, for special exemption CIFs, national banks and FSAs must submit to the OCC a written plan that sets forth:
• The reason the proposed fund requires a special exemption;
• The provisions of the fund that are inconsistent with 12 CFR 9.18(a) and (b);
• The provisions of 12 CFR 9.18(b) for which the national bank or FSA seeks an exemption; and
• The manner in which the proposed fund addresses the rights and interests of participating accounts.
The OCC published a notice for 60 days of comment regarding the collection on November 20, 2015, 80 FR 72784. No comments were received. Comments continue to be solicited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the 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.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC).
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, 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 a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled, “Identity Theft Red Flags and Address Discrepancies under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003.” The OCC also is giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.
Comments must be received by March 7, 2016.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0237, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, mail stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to
Comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Additionally, please send a copy of your comments by mail to: OCC Desk Officer, 1557-0237, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503, or by email to:
Shaquita Merritt, Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
Pursuant to the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the OCC is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the following information collection:
• Guidelines for financial institutions and creditors regarding identity theft with respect to their account holders and customers; (in developing the guidelines, the Agencies are required to identify patterns, practices, and specific forms of activity that indicate the possible existence of identity theft; the guidelines must be updated as often as necessary and must be consistent with the policies and procedures required under section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act, 31 U.S.C. 5318(l));
• Regulations that require each financial institution and each creditor to establish reasonable policies and procedures for implementing the guidelines in order to identify possible risks to account holders or customers or to the safety and soundness of the institution or creditor; and
• Regulations generally requiring credit and debit card issuers to assess the validity of change of address requests under certain circumstances.
Section 315 of the FACT Act also amended section 605 of the FCRA to require the Agencies to issue regulations providing guidance regarding what reasonable policies and procedures a user of consumer reports must have in place and employ when a user receives a notice of address discrepancy from a consumer reporting agency (CRA).
• Enable a user to form a reasonable belief that it knows the identity of the person for whom it has obtained a consumer report; and
• Reconcile the address of the consumer with the CRA, if the user establishes a continuing relationship with the consumer and regularly and, in the ordinary course of business, furnishes information to the CRA.
As required by section 114 of the FACT Act, appendix J to 12 CFR part 41 contains guidelines for financial institutions and creditors to use in identifying patterns, practices, and specific forms of activity that may indicate the existence of identity theft. In addition, 12 CFR 41.90 requires each financial institution or creditor that is a national bank, Federal savings association, Federal branch or agency of a foreign bank, and any of their operating subsidiaries that are not functionally regulated, to establish an Identity Theft Prevention Program (Program) designed to detect, prevent, and mitigate identity theft in connection with accounts. Pursuant to § 41.91, credit card and debit card issuers must implement reasonable policies and procedures to assess the validity of a request for a change of address under certain circumstances.
Section 41.90 requires each OCC-regulated financial institution or creditor that offers or maintains one or more covered accounts to develop and implement a Program. In developing the Program, financial institutions and creditors are required to consider the guidelines in appendix J and include the suggested provisions, as appropriate. The initial Program must be approved by the institution's board of directors or by an appropriate committee thereof. The board, an appropriate committee thereof, or a designated employee at the level of senior management must be involved in the oversight of the Program. In addition, staff members must be trained to carry out the Program. Pursuant to § 41.91, each credit and debit card issuer is required to establish and implement policies and procedures to assess the validity of a change of address request if it is followed by a request for an additional or replacement card. Before issuing the additional or replacement card, the card issuer must notify the cardholder of the request and provide the cardholder a reasonable means to report incorrect address changes or use another means to assess the validity of the change of address.
As required by section 315 of the FACT Act, § 1022.82 requires users of consumer reports to have in place reasonable policies and procedures that must be followed when a user receives a notice of address discrepancy from a credit reporting agency (CRA).
Section 1022.82 requires each user of consumer reports to develop and implement reasonable policies and procedures designed to enable the user to form a reasonable belief that a consumer report relates to the consumer about whom it requested the report when it receives a notice of address discrepancy from a CRA. A user of consumer reports also must develop and implement reasonable policies and procedures for furnishing a customer address that the user has reasonably confirmed to be accurate to the CRA from which it receives a notice of address discrepancy when the user can: (1) Form a reasonable belief that the consumer report relates to the consumer about whom the user has requested the report; (2) establish a continuing relationship with the consumer; and (3) establish that it regularly and, in the ordinary course of business, furnishes information to the CRA from which it received the notice of address discrepancy.
The OCC published a notice concerning this collection for 60 days of comment on November 20, 2015, 80 FR72783. No comments were received. Comments continue to be invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the 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.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 7, 2016.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7492 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. 2, the Commission on Care gives amended notice that it will meet Monday, February 8, 2016 at the Washington Marriott at Metro Center, 775 12th St. NW., Washington, DC 20005. The meeting will convene at 12:00 p.m. and end no later than 8:00 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Commission, as described in section 202 of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, is to examine the access of veterans to health care from the Department of Veterans Affairs and strategically examine how best to organize the Veterans Health Administration, locate health care resources, and deliver health care to veterans during the next 20 years.
No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. The public may submit written statements for the Commission's review to
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM): request for comments.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is proposing requirements for Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans as authorized by Section 20021 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). This proposed rule would require operators of public transportation systems that receive Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 to develop and implement Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans based on the Safety Management System approach. Development and implementation of agency safety plans will help ensure that public transportation systems are safe nationwide. FTA seeks public comments on all aspects of this proposed rule, including information related to its benefits and costs, as well as alternative approaches that may more cost-effectively satisfy the statutory requirements and help ensure the safety of the nation's public transportation system.
Comments must be received by April 5, 2016. Any comments filed after this deadline will be considered to the extent practicable.
FTA will hold webinars to explain the proposed rule. Interested stakeholders should check FTA's Web site for days and times of webinars:
Please submit your comments by only one of the following methods, identifying your submission by Docket Number (FTA-2015-0021) or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) (2132-AB23).
•
•
•
•
For program matters, contact Brian Alberts, Office of Transit Safety and Oversight, (202) 366-1783 or
Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The public transportation industry remains among the safest surface transportation modes in terms of total reported safety events, fatalities, and injuries.
This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes requirements for Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans that would carry out explicit statutory mandates in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141; July 6, 2012) (MAP-21), which recently was reauthorized by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (Pub. L. 114-94; December 4, 2015) and codified at 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), to strengthen the safety of public transportation systems that receive Federal financial assistance under Chapter 53. This NPRM proposes requirements for the adoption of Safety Management Systems (SMS) principles and methods; the development,
In Section 20021 of MAP-21, Congress directed FTA to establish a comprehensive Public Transportation Safety Program, one element of which is the requirement for Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), FTA must issue a final rule requiring operators of public transportation systems that receive financial assistance under Chapter 53 to develop and certify Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans. FTA also is required to issue a rule designating certain Urbanized Area Formula Program recipients under 49 U.S.C. 5307 that may have their Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans drafted or certified by a State. 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(3)(B). Further, FTA must allow States to draft and certify Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans for Rural Area Formula Program recipients and subrecipients under 49 U.S.C. 5311. 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(3)(A).
The proposed rule would add a new Part 673, “Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans,” to Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The rule would implement the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5329(d).
One year after FTA issues a final rule to carry out Section 5329(d), each State, local governmental authority, and other operator of a public transportation system that receives Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, must certify that it has established and implemented a comprehensive Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan. 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1). FTA proposes that large transit providers that are direct recipients of Section 5307 funds would develop their own plans, have the plans approved by their Boards of Directors (or equivalent authority), and certify to FTA that those plans are in place. FTA also proposes that transit providers which receive funds under the Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5310 (which tend to be much smaller transit providers) and transit providers that receive funds under the Rural Area Formula Program authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5311, as well as small public transportation providers as defined in this NPRM, may have their plans drafted or certified by the State in which they operate.
At a minimum, and consistent with 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), FTA proposes that each Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan must:
• Include a Safety Management System consisting of four main pillars: (1) Safety Management Policy, (2) Safety Risk Management, (3) Safety Assurance, and (4) Safety Promotion, as discussed in more detail below (49 CFR 673.11(a)(2));
• Include performance targets based on the safety performance criteria established under the National Public Transportation Safety Plan, and the state of good repair standards established in the regulations that implement the National Transit Asset Management System and are included in the National Public Transportation Safety Plan (49 CFR 673.11(a)(3));
• Address all applicable requirements and standards as set forth in FTA's Public Transportation Safety Program and National Public Transportation Safety Plan (49 CFR 673.11(a)(4)); and
• Establish a process and timeline for conducting an annual review and update of the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan (49 CFR 673.11(a)(5)).
FTA proposes that each rail transit agency must include in its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan an emergency preparedness and response plan, as historically required by FTA under its State Safety Oversight Rule at 49 CFR part 659. 49 CFR 673.11(a)(6).
A transit agency would be able to develop one Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan for all modes of service, or it may develop a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan for each mode of service not subject to safety regulation by another Federal entity. 49 CFR 673.11(b). A transit agency would be required to maintain records associated with its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan. 49 CFR 673 subpart D. Any rail fixed guideway public transportation system that had a System Safety Program Plan compliant with 49 CFR part 659 as of October 1, 2012, would be able to keep that plan in effect until one year after the effective date of the final rule. 49 CFR 673.11(e). Agencies that operate passenger ferries regulated by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) or commuter rail service regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) would not be required to develop agency safety plans for those modes of service. 49 CFR 673.11(f).
A State or transit agency would be required to make its safety performance targets available to States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations to aid in the planning process, and to the maximum extent practicable, a State or transit agency would be required to coordinate with States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations in the selection of State and MPO safety performance targets. 49 CFR 673.15.
On an annual basis, a transit agency or State would be required to certify its compliance with this rule. 49 CFR 673.13.
FTA has determined that this proposed rule likely is “economically significant” under Executive Order 12866, in that it may lead to transit agencies making investment and prioritization decisions related to mitigation of safety risks that would result in economic impacts that could exceed $100 million in a year. However, as discussed in greater detail below, FTA was unable to quantify the potential impacts of this rule beyond the costs for transit agencies to develop and implement Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans. FTA was able to estimate costs of approximately $86 million in the first year, and $70 million per year thereafter. These costs result from developing and certifying safety plans, documenting the SMS approach, implementing SMS, and associated recordkeeping. The estimated costs do not include the costs of actions that transit agencies would be required to take to mitigate risk as a result of implementing this rule, such as vehicle modifications, additional training, technology investments, or changes to operating procedures. The annualized cost of proposed requirements is estimated to be approximately $71 million.
FTA could not estimate the benefits of the proposed rule. To estimate safety benefits, one would need to understand the exact causes of the accidents and the factors that may cause future accidents. This information is generally unknown in this sector, given the infrequency and diversity of the type of safety incidents that occur. In addition, one would need information about the safety problems that agencies are likely to find through implementation of their safety plans and the actions agencies are likely to take to address those problems. Instead, FTA conducted a breakeven analysis that compares the estimated costs (absent the cost of mitigations beyond those specifically required by the rule such as training) to a pool of potential safety benefits. The pool of potential safety benefits is an estimate of the cost of all bus and rail incidents over a future 20-year period. The estimate is an
As Table 1 below shows, the amount of incident reduction needed to breakeven with estimated costs is low. However, benefits of SMS will primarily result from mitigating actions, which are largely not accounted for in this analysis. FTA has not estimated the benefits of implementing SMS without mitigating actions, but expects they are unlikely to be large. Estimated costs for agencies' safety plans include certain activities that could yield safety improvements, such as improved communication, identification of hazards, and greater employee awareness. It is plausible that these activities alone could produce accident reductions that surpass the breakeven level, though even greater reductions could be achieved in concert with other mitigating actions.
This analysis assumes that benefits are realized from reducing both rail and bus incidents after adjusting for the estimated breakeven threshold for the proposed State Safety Oversight and Safety Training Rules (RINs 2132-AB19 and 2132-AB25 respectively), to which the rail agencies also will be subject when finalized.
On July 6, 2012,
The Public Transportation Safety Program consists of several key elements: the National Public Transportation Safety Plan, authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5329(b); the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program, authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5329(c); the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans, authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5329(d); and the State Safety Oversight Program, authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5329(e). FTA will issue rules and guidance to carry out all of these plans and programs under the rulemaking authority of 49 U.S.C. 5329 and 5334(a)(11).
On October 3, 2013, FTA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for the National Public Transportation Safety Plan, the Safety Certification Training Program, and the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans. 78 FR 61251. Through the ANPRM, FTA also sought public comment on transit asset management, given FTA's statutory directive to develop and implement a Transit Asset Management System under 49 U.S.C. 5326. FTA is addressing the National Public Transportation Safety Plan, the Safety Certification Training Program, and the Transit Asset Management System through separate rulemakings and guidance documents. Each of these programs will contribute to the establishment of a comprehensive framework that will help to ensure public transportation systems are safe nationwide.
In most instances, the requirements of the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans will apply to each recipient and subrecipient of FTA funding, regardless of the mode(s) of transit provided. However, two provisions limit FTA's regulatory jurisdiction. First, FTA is prohibited from establishing safety performance standards for rolling stock that is already regulated by another Federal agency. 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(2)(C)(i). Second, the requirements of the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans will not apply to rail transit systems to the extent that they are already subject to regulation by FRA. 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(1) and (e)(2). Further, to the extent that any other Federal agency already regulates the safety of a particular mode of public transportation, FTA does not intend to publish duplicative, inconsistent, or conflicting regulations.
Today's proposed rule for establishing and certifying Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans takes into account the size, complexity, and operating environments of applicable recipients. FTA proposes the incorporation of SMS principles and methods to support Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan development and implementation. SMS provides transit agencies flexibility in establishing processes and activities to address safety risks within their agencies in a scalable manner.
Until FTA issues a final rule to carry out Section 5329(d), existing system safety and security program plans required of rail fixed guideway systems under 49 CFR part 659 will remain in effect. 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(2). Within one year of the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan final rule's effective date, all operators of public transportation systems that receive Chapter 53 funds would be required to draft and certify their Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans, unless a State is otherwise required to do so on behalf of the public transportation provider, in which case, the State also would have one year after the rule's effective date to draft and certify its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans. Public transportation providers that operate multiple modes of transit service would have the option of preparing separate Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans for each mode, or preparing one Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan for all modes operated by the provider. If separate safety plans are developed for multiple modes under FTA's jurisdiction, each Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan (for example, one for bus service and one for rail transit service) must comply with the final rule.
Prior to MAP-21, FTA's authority to require safety plans was limited to rail transit agencies subject to FTA's State Safety Oversight Rule. Under existing 49 CFR part 659, any State that has a rail
In addition to requiring safety and security plans for rail fixed guideway systems, FTA established and currently manages a voluntary Bus Safety Program that has encouraged bus transit agencies to develop system safety program plans to implement safety program activities. The voluntary program has been very well received and has promoted coordination among FTA, the Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA), and the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) to provide technical assistance to bus transit agencies to support system safety program plan development and implementation. Through FTA's Bus Safety Program, more States have recommended that their bus transit agencies develop safety plans using templates provided by FTA through its safety Web site. In addition, a number of States require both rail and bus transit agencies to develop system safety program plans.
The aforementioned efforts demonstrate that many transit agencies embrace the concept and benefits of developing safety plans in order to document their safety program activities, as well as ensure commitment from agency executives who often review and sign the safety plan or policy statement.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans must be drafted and certified by each transit agency regardless of mode, with the exception of transit providers that receive funds under 49 U.S.C. 5311 (Section 5311) and small public transportation providers as defined in this NPRM, which may have their plans drafted and certified by the State. In addition to this statutory requirement, FTA is proposing that the State must draft and certify Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans for operators of public transportation that receive funds under 49 U.S.C. 5310 (Section 5310), in an effort to alleviate the regulatory, administrative, and financial burdens on the small recipients in this program. FTA proposes that a Section 5310, Section 5311, or small public transportation provider may opt to draft and certify their own plan. Today's proposed rule helps advance the regulatory steps taken by FTA and States previously and the voluntary efforts taken by industry associations, States, and transit providers to improve transit safety.
Pursuant to 49 U. S.C. 5329(d)(1), each Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan must include, at minimum:
• A requirement that the board of directors, or equivalent entity, approve the plan and any updates;
• Methods for identifying and evaluating safety risks throughout all elements of the recipient's public transportation system;
• Strategies to minimize the exposure of the public, personnel, and property to hazards and unsafe conditions;
• A process and timeline for conducting an annual review and update of the plan;
• Performance targets based on the safety performance criteria and state of good repair standards set out in the National Public Transportation Safety Plan;
• Assignment of an adequately trained Safety Officer who reports directly to the general manager, president, or equivalent officer of the recipient; and
• A comprehensive staff training program for operations personnel and personnel directly responsible for safety that includes the completion of a safety training program and continuing safety education and training.
Public transportation is one of the safest modes of travel.
The NTSB has investigated a number of these accidents and has issued reports identifying the probable causes and contributing factors, including deficiencies in the training and supervision of employees;
In order to advance a comprehensive approach to safety decision-making, FTA is proposing to adopt an SMS approach to developing and implementing the Public Transportation Safety Program, and specifically the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans. Following a recommendation from FTA's designated Federal Advisory Committee—the Transit Advisory Committee for Safety (TRACS
Safety management is based on the fact that safety is not an absolute condition—there always will be hazards and risks in public transportation. However, an approach of primarily reacting to accidents and incidents by prescribing measures to prevent recurrence alone will not contribute to sustaining and improving public transportation safety.
Modern SMS practices that systematically and proactively identify the factors that contribute to unsafe events, and prevent or minimize the likelihood of their occurrence, have proven effective in other transportation sectors. Such practices call for setting safety goals and objectives, defining clear levels of accountability and responsibility for safety, establishing proactive approaches to identifying hazards and managing safety risks in day‐to‐day activities, establishing safety risk‐based resource allocation, monitoring and evaluating performance towards goals, and continuous learning and improvement. SMS is a significant improvement over more “reactive” safety activities, which tend to focus on discovering and mitigating the cause of an accident only after that accident has occurred.
SMS integrates safety into all aspects of a transit system's activities, from planning to design, to construction, to operations, and to maintenance. SMS builds on the public transportation industry's three decades of experience with system safety by bringing management processes, integrated data analysis, and organizational culture more squarely into the industry's overall risk management framework. SMS is a management approach that provides processes that ensure each public transportation agency, no matter its size or service environment, has the necessary organizational structures, accountabilities, policies, and procedures in place to direct and control resources to manage safety optimally. When fully applied, the SMS approach provides a set of decision-making tools that allow transit agencies to prioritize safety when making informed operating and capital investment decisions.
SMS is comprised of four essential components: (1) Safety Management Policy, (2) Safety Risk Management, (3) Safety Assurance, and (4) Safety Promotion. Each of these components, or “pillars,” is consistent with 49 U.S.C. 5329(d). The table below illustrates the connection between each of the statutory requirements for safety plans and the pillars of SMS.
Safety Management Policy is the foundation of the organization's SMS. The safety management policy statement clearly states the organization's safety objectives and sets forth the policies, procedures, and organizational structures necessary to accomplish the safety objectives. It clearly delineates management and employee responsibilities for safety throughout the organization. It also ensures that management is actively engaged in the oversight of the organization's safety performance by requiring regular review of the safety policy by a designated Accountable Executive (general manager, president, or other person with similar authority). Within the context of the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, an organization's safety objectives will be articulated through the setting of performance targets based on, at a minimum, the safety performance criteria established in the National Public Transportation Safety Plan, and state of good repair standards based on the definition of that term established under the National Transit Asset Management System Rule. See 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(E).
Pursuant to the statutory requirements at 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(B) and (C), each agency's Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan must include “methods for identifying and evaluating safety risks
The statutory requirements at 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(B), (C), and (D) also encompass the requirements of the third component of SMS—Safety Assurance. Safety Assurance requires an organization to monitor the effectiveness of safety risk mitigations established under Safety Risk Management. Safety Assurance is also designed to ensure that the organization meets or exceeds its safety objectives through the collection, analysis, and assessment of data about the organization's performance. One of the keys elements of Safety Assurance is a regular review and update of a transit agency's SMS and overall safety plan to ensure their effectiveness.
The fourth component of SMS—Safety Promotion—involves the training, awareness, and communication that support safety. The training aspect of SMS is consistent with the statutory requirement for a comprehensive staff training program for operations personnel and personnel directly responsible for safety. 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(G).
Service providers within the public transportation industry can vary greatly based on size, complexity, and operating characteristics. Transit agencies need safety processes, activities, and tools that scale to size, complexity, and uniqueness of the transit system. SMS provides such an approach. SMS is flexible, and can be scaled to the mode, size, and complexity of any transit operator, in any environment—urban, suburban, or rural. The extent to which the transit agency's SMS processes, activities, and tools are used and documented will vary from agency to agency. For a small bus operation, SMS is going to be simple and straightforward. For a larger transit agency with hundreds or thousands of employees and multiple modes, SMS is going to be more complex.
SMS scales itself to reflect the size and complexity of the operation, but the fundamental accountability remains the same. SMS establishes the accountabilities, processes and activities necessary to ensure that appropriate information rises to the highest levels of the organization to support decision-making related to safety risk. However, each transit agency will determine the level of detail necessary to identify and evaluate its own unique safety risks and target its resources to manage those safety risks.
Other modes of transportation, such as the aviation and rail industries, have adopted SMS as the foundation and framework for their safety systems given the success of SMS in preventing and mitigation safety outcomes. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently adopted SMS and promulgated a regulation which requires certain air carriers to develop safety plans based on the principles of SMS.
There is also preliminary evidence of the success of SMS as an effective method of mitigating and preventing safety outcomes in other modes of transportation in other parts of the world. For example, Transport Canada has noted that, in the area of rail safety:
[N]ot only have qualitative benefits been identified, but statistics reflect a correlation between the introduction of the safety management system approach in 2001 and improved safety statistics. Statistical analysis . . . indicates a downward trend in accident rates . . . over the past 10 years. Moreover, since 2007, train accidents have decreased by 23% and passenger train accidents have decreased by 19%. This decrease can be linked to increased levels of consultation and communication between the three largest railway companies and Transport Canada, enhanced focus on safety management systems, and a variety of new safety initiatives related to operations and infrastructure. It is therefore expected that updates to safety management systems would help further reduce the number of accidents, fatalities and injuries, and property damage.
In short, FTA believes that SMS is the most effective way of preventing and mitigating safety events in the transit industry. Notwithstanding the above, FTA seeks comments from the public on alternative regulatory requirements, potentially in combination with non-mandatory guidance, that would satisfy the statutory requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) and that may more cost-effectively improve the safety of the nation's public transportation systems. FTA specifically invites the public to provide information to allow the comparison of the benefits and costs of FTA's proposed requirements to alternative approaches.
Each transit agency has a process by which it budgets, allocates funds, and plans for the future. In most cases, this decision-making process is led by a President, General Manager, or Chief Executive Officer who formulates and proposes capital and operating budgets. For purposes of the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan and Transit Asset Management Plan rules, FTA is proposing to require transit agencies to identify these individuals as the “Accountable Executives” for those agencies. The Accountable Executive would be responsible approving the transit agency's Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, and any updates thereto. The Accountable Executive would be responsible for the implementation and maintenance of the SMS. This Accountable Executive also would be responsible for making decisions over the human and capital resources needed to develop and maintain the agency's Transit Asset Management Plan required by 49 U.S.C. 5326. FTA intends that the individual who is responsible for making decisions related to the condition of the agency's capital assets, particularly whether those assets are in a state of good repair, is also responsible for implementing the agency's SMS and determining whether those assets are presenting any safety risks. This individual must have the ability to make budgetary, operational, and capital program decisions to address these competing needs and issues.
Ultimately, the decisions made by the Accountable Executive regarding the proposed capital and operating budgets typically are presented for approval to the transit agency's Board of Directors or equivalent entity. An Accountable Executive and members of the transit agency's Board of Directors must make
As discussed above, FTA issued an ANPRM on October 3, 2013. 78 FR 61251 (
Of the 123 questions presented in the ANPRM, FTA is addressing 42 questions in this notice related to Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans. Specifically, FTA addresses the following questions in this notice: 8-10, 17-31, 33-44, 47, 107-110, 112, and 116-121.
To reduce the burden on readers, where applicable and possible, FTA provides a summation and/or reference to the State Safety Oversight Program, or Public Transportation Safety Program NPRMs as a way to direct the reader to the appropriate discussion and limit redundancy.
FTA took relevant comments into consideration when developing this proposed rule. Below, the ANPRM comments and responses are subdivided by subject and corresponding question numbers.
In the Plan Requirements section of the ANPRM, FTA sought input on the costs and benefits of including rail, bus, and other public transportation modes under one Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan for those agencies that operate multiple modes of public transportation. The State's Role section of the ANPRM sought comment on the applicability of Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan requirements to recipients of Section 5311 Tribal Transit Formula and Tribal Transit Discretionary Program funds. The ANPRM also sought comment on how to define small public transportation providers under 49 U.S.C. 5307 (Section 5307) and whether or not the scope of Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan requirements should be less stringent for smaller public transit providers.
In regards to 49 U.S.C. 5311 Tribal recipients, some commenters stated that FTA should decide how best to apply safety plan provisions to these recipients. Other commenters suggested that Section 5311 Tribal recipients should report directly to FTA, and others stated that Tribal recipients should be included in standard statewide safety plans. Additionally, a few commenters suggested that 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) does not apply to State subrecipients or Tribal Transit recipients. One commenter recommended that Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan requirements should apply equally to all recipients, including those receiving funds through the Tribal Transit Formula and Tribal Transit Discretionary Programs.
In terms of whether or not requirements should be less stringent for smaller public transit providers, several commenters suggested that, while there should be consistency in the approach to safety, smaller transit providers should not be subjected to overly burdensome requirements and should be allowed to implement less stringent approaches to safety management. These and other commenters also suggested that, if possible, smaller transit providers should be able to pool resources with States or other transit providers for expenses associated with acquiring safety training, if possible. To this point, a few commenters recommended that FTA adopt CTAA's Certified Safety and Security Officer Certification Program as a way to minimize additional training cost for small transit providers. In general, many commenters recommended that the scope of FTA's requirement should be scalable and flexible enough to recognize that smaller transit operations may contain fewer safety risks than those of larger transit agencies.
With respect to FTA's question as to how it should define small Section 5307 public transportation providers, several commenters recommended that the definition should be based on either the population of the urbanized area (UZA) that the transit agency serves or by the number of vehicles in operation during peak service. Specifically, commenters stated that either a population between 50,000 and 200,000, or a population of 200,000 or less, should be used as the threshold to define a small Section 5307 public transportation provider. Other commenters stated that 100 buses or fewer in peak service should be the threshold set for a small Section 5307 public transportation provider, as it is a measure familiar throughout the entire public transportation industry and less subject to variation than other similar measures. A few commenters recommended that the definition used for waivers in the National Transit Database (NTD)—thirty or fewer vehicles across all modes and types of service—should be used as the measure to define a small Section 5307 public transportation provider. Other commenters suggested that FTA define these agencies by size of area served, revenue miles, or passenger counts. Finally, a few commenters suggested that the States should have no role in
Although FTA is proposing to provide flexibility to transit agencies so that they can determine for themselves whether they will develop a single safety plan for all modes of transit, or whether they will develop individual safety plans for each mode, FTA is not proposing to allow transit agencies to utilize their FRA-required commuter railroad safety plans for other modes of transit regulated by FTA. FTA notes that on September 7, 2012, FRA issued an NPRM related to its System Safety Program. 77 FR 55406. In this NPRM, FRA proposes to require any railroad that operates intercity or commuter passenger train service and any railroad that provides commuter or other short-haul rail passenger train service to develop a System Safety Program Plan. FRA proposes to protect from discovery, evidence, and Federal and State court proceedings any information compiled or collected solely for the purpose of developing, implementing, or evaluating a System Safety Program Plan, including a railroad's analysis of its safety risks and its identification of safety risk mitigation measures. Given FRA's proposal and given the fact that FTA does not have similar statutory authority to protect data, an operator of a public transportation system which provides commuter rail service regulated by FRA would not be able to use its System Safety Program Plan for other modes of public transportation. The public transportation provider would be required to develop a separate plan or plans for its other modes of public transportation subject to FTA's safety regulation.
In today's NPRM, FTA proposes, consistent with the statutory mandate, that requirements of Part 673 would apply to all operators of public transportation systems that receive Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. FTA proposes to define an operator of a public transportation system to mean a provider of public transportation as defined under 49 U.S.C. 5302(14). This definition generally includes regular, continuing shared ride surface transportation that is open to the public, and which does not provide service that is closed to the general public and only available for particular clientele, such as Section 5310-funded service that is not open to the general public and only available for a particular clientele. FTA invites comments from the public regarding the definition of the term, “operator of a public transportation system.”
While Congress did not specify that Section 5310 providers could have their plans drafted or certified by a State, FTA notes that 49 U.S.C. 5329 applies to all operators of public transportation systems that receive Chapter 53 funds. The definition of public transportation in 49 U.S.C. 5302 includes services that “are open to a segment of the general public defined by age, disability, or low income.” The Section 5310 program historically has funded vehicles for non-profit agencies that serve these segments of the general public, either in open door service or closed door service available only to clients of a particular agency or agencies. Importantly, not every entity that receives Section 5310 funds is a small non-profit agency with one or two FTA-funded vehicles. Many Section 5310 providers operate substantial fixed route or demand response service, including ADA complementary paratransit service, and in many cases these entities also receive urbanized (Section 5307) or rural area (Section 5311) formula funds.
FTA therefore is proposing that the type of service, rather than the source of FTA funds, be the deciding factor in determining whether a Section 5310 recipient must have a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan. In the case when a Section 5310 provider operates service that is open door service (open to a segment of the general public), FTA proposes that the Section 5310 provider must have its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan drafted and certified by a State, unless the Section 5310 provider opts to draft and certify its own plan. Most of these Section 5310 providers are smaller operators of public transportation systems, and through this requirement, FTA intends to alleviate the administrative and financial burdens placed on Section 5310 providers in complying with this part. In the case when a Section 5310 provider operates service that is closed to the general public and only available for a particular clientele, FTA proposes that neither the State nor the Section 5310 provider would be required to develop and certify a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan. In other words, nonprofit and other community service organizations that receive Section 5310 funds and provide closed door service would not be required to draft and certify Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans.
FTA seeks comments from the public on these proposals, particularly as to whether a Section 5310 provider operating a public transportation system should be required to develop and implement a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, whether or not the entity also receives Section 5307 or Section 5311 funds, and if so, whether that plan should be drafted and certified by a State. FTA also seeks comment as to whether a designated recipient under 49 U.S.C. 5310 should draft and certify Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans on behalf of Section 5310 providers in large urbanized areas instead of the State, or if the States should draft and certify those plans.
FTA anticipates scalability and flexibility in agency plan development, and FTA will provide substantial technical assistance and guidance to all recipients and subrecipients. Proposed requirements in today's NPRM recognize the variance in size, complexity, and operating characteristics of the public transportation industry.
Because 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) provides that States may draft and certify Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans for Section 5311 providers (most of which are smaller transit agencies) and small public transportation providers under Section 5307, and because SMS implementation is inherently scalable, FTA believes that today's proposal provides sufficient flexibility for States and small transit providers, such that they would not be expected to incur expenses for safety management equal to those of a large transit agency. While FTA proposes that 49 CFR part 673 would apply to all Chapter 53 operators of public transportation systems, the proposed requirements may be scaled to address variances in transit agency size, complexity, and operating environment.
In today's NPRM, FTA proposes to define small public transportation providers under Section 5307 based on vehicles operating in revenue service. Any public transportation provider that does not operate rail fixed guideway service and operates 100 or fewer vehicles in revenue service, including
FTA considered various alternatives suggested by commenters, such as using a lower vehicles operating in revenue service threshold or UZA population. FTA evaluated each alternative, assessing safety performance, resource burden, and consistency with other FTA programs and definitions. Ultimately, FTA agreed with commenters that recommended the 100 or fewer vehicles operating in revenue service option because it results in a lower degree of burden placed on individual Section 5307 public transportation providers and it creates alignment with FTA's Transit Asset Management Program proposed rule. By using this number, FTA is trying to ensure that the lowest administrative, financial, and regulatory burdens are placed on the transit industry, including small transit providers. This is a number that the industry commonly uses to define small Section 5307 bus agencies, particularly in regards to FTA operating assistance.
Section I of the ANPRM highlighted FTA's intention to propose the SMS approach as the foundation for the development, implementation, oversight, and enforcement of the new Public Transportation Safety Program.
The ANPRM posed several questions related to SMS, including questions related to: (1) Barriers to SMS adoption; (2) the need for technical assistance; (3) the current use of SMS in the transit industry and alternative approaches; and (4) the current practices and challenges with the management of safety risks. These ANPRM questions also related to the adoption of SMS by FTA and the use of SMS to inform Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans.
SMS processes and activities can assist transit agencies in identifying safety concerns and issues, evaluating these concerns for their potential impact on transit safety, and developing cost-effective mitigations to address safety concerns so that an accident or safety event can be prevented. FTA does not agree that SMS is a departure from tried and true safety practices. SMS, as a management system, embraces current safety practices and activities, and ensures that transit agency executive management is presented with timely information to act on safety risks in a proactive manner.
Today's rulemaking proposes that each transit agency would be required to implement SMS. FTA believes that it is critical for each transit agency to work through the process of identifying and managing safety risks that may be unique to its size, operations, and operating environment. Because SMS processes, activities and tools can be adapted to the size, complexity, and uniqueness of the transit agency, FTA believes it is the best approach to address the requirements set forth in 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1). For example, the safety reporting program of a large agency might require rather important and robust IT support for data management and several safety data analysts, whereas the same program for a small agency might be administered with a spreadsheet for data management and a part-time safety analyst or a staff person who analyzes safety data as an ancillary duty.
To reduce the administrative, financial, and regulatory burdens on small public transportation providers, the proposed rule requires States to draft and certify Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans—and documentation of SMS processes therein—for Section 5310, Section 5311, and small public transportation providers, unless those providers opt to draft and certify their own safety plans. Although FTA proposes to require States to draft and certify Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans, FTA proposes that each recipient which operates a public transportation system implement its own safety plan,
In an effort to further reduce the administrative, financial, and regulatory burdens on recipients and other public transportation operators, FTA will develop and issue templates for Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans for agencies of different sizes. FTA also will develop and issue guidance and other tools, and provide technical assistance, to support SMS development and implementation.
Some commenters suggested that a need for SMS training exists, and that transit agencies may experience challenges with the development and implementation of SMS. To address these concerns, FTA will continue to develop and provide safety training for the industry, and FTA also will collect and provide information on other sources of outside SMS training. Currently, FTA provides a number of courses to support transit agency safety training needs. FTA intends to expand these offerings, including online courses, to support general safety training, as well as training on SMS principles and methods. FTA is piloting SMS training courses. Additionally, FTA will launch an Agency SMS Implementation Pilot Program to help reduce the burden on transit agencies for developing SMS by identifying effective safety practices, including training that will be shared with the industry. These efforts, coupled with technical guidance, will directly assist those agencies for which a lack of training and guidance may be a barrier to SMS implementation. Recently, FTA issued Final Interim Safety Certification Training Provisions which set forth the safety training requirements for Federal and State Safety Oversight Agency personnel and their contractors who conduct safety oversight audits and examinations of public transportation systems not otherwise regulated by another Federal agency. See 80 FR 10619 (Feb. 27, 2015) (
FTA disagrees with commenters who suggested that there might be additional challenges with SMS adoption because of political and legal issues with Boards of Directors and local politics. Just as a Board of Directors is responsible for the service levels provided to the community and budgets adopted, they are also accountable for safety outcomes. FTA believes that SMS provides greater transparency in the prioritization of, and decision-making regarding, a transit agency's safety risks. Today's notice mirrors statutory language in 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) with respect to executive level accountability and would require that a transit agency's Board of Directors (or equivalent authority) review and approve the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan.
One commenter suggested that a challenge to SMS adoption may be the difficulty in distinguishing between the FRA-required safety model and the SMS model. FTA believes that SMS implementation encourages coordination in Safety Risk Management for all modes operated by a transit agency. However, and in response to this comment, FTA notes that it has different statutory authority than FRA for regulating safety, and to the extent another Federal agency already regulates safety of a particular mode of transportation, FTA does not intend to promulgate duplicative, inconsistent, or conflicting regulations. Therefore, agencies that operate passenger ferries regulated by the United States Coast Guard or commuter rail service regulated by FRA would not have to develop FTA safety plans for those modes of service. FTA seeks public comments on whether any aspect of this proposed rule is duplicative, inconsistent, or conflicts with other Federal agency regulations.
With respect to comments related to perceived challenges in SMS implementation due to management/labor collective bargaining agreements or for systems that contract for service, today's proposed rule does not include requirements regarding collective bargaining, and FTA anticipates that each transit agency would benefit from increased information on safety issues and performance.
Some commenters indicated that they provide alternative safety management approaches. Some suggested that FTA adopt a centralized, State or regional, safety management or other approach that would lessen the burden for States. One commenter suggested that FTA provide an option for transit agencies that operate fewer than 100 vehicles, or other small transit agencies, to participate in insurance risk pools (and be exempted from any requirement to develop and implement SMS), while other commenters expressed their opposition to any rulemaking by FTA on SMS because they did not want to be subject to Federal regulations on safety. Finally, several commenters indicated that they were in agreement with FTA's adoption of SMS.
Recipients may utilize additional safety management practices, but recipients would be required to meet the basic requirements as set forth in today's proposed rule. Based on comments received, FTA is confident that the transit industry already has some elements of SMS in place.
With respect to commenters who suggested a more centralized State management approach, today's proposal requires States to draft and certify Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans on behalf of Section 5310, Section 5311, and small public transportation providers (as defined in this NPRM). FTA disagrees with the commenter who proposed that transit agencies operating fewer than 100 vehicles be exempt from SMS requirements in favor of insurance risk pools. While insurance risk pools may take into account safety risk, FTA does not believe that they meet all elements of an SMS, nor do they satisfy all of the statutory requirements of Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans. Nothing in today's proposal would prevent transit agencies from participating in insurance risk pools in addition to implementing a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan with SMS.
One commenter suggested that another potential issue with adopting a risk-based approach to human factors relates to transit employees' rights to health privacy. A few commenters recommended that FTA take a statistical sample approach to gather data on this subject, which could inform and guide further formulation of agency safety plan requirements.
The ANPRM posed several questions related to the development, certification, and oversight of Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans. Specifically, FTA sought comments in the following areas: (1) Plan drafting and updating, (2) plan certification, (3) the role of the State, and (4) oversight of the plan. Questions regarding the drafting, certification, or oversight of a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan that included reference to the role of the State are addressed in Section 3: Role of the State, below.
FTA is proposing that recipients and other operators of public transportation systems update their Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans annually so that they remain current to meet evolving needs and so that they capture any new best practices in the industry. Readers should note that reviews and updates to a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan developed by rail fixed guideway systems must adhere to the requirements that are codified at 49 CFR part 659, until FTA issues a final rule for State Safety Oversight at 49 CFR part 674.
FTA sought comment on the mechanics of Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan certification, including the certification for subrecipients; whether a self-assessment, or set of procedures, should be followed prior to certification; and the role of FTA in reviewing plans and certifications.
Many commenters indicated that they do not support FTA's review of Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan certifications on the basis of a weighted random sample. A few commenters suggested that Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan certifications be reviewed on the basis of a weighted random sample, as a suitable alternative to reviewing all plans. Some commenters also indicated that, although a weighted random sample could be appropriate, it is important that the system is not overly burdensome.
Some commenters suggested that FTA establish self-assessment procedures, but only one commenter indicated that FTA should establish procedures for recipients to follow before certifying their Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans. Many commenters suggested that it would be helpful if FTA established a self-assessment checklist, or a tool for recipients to utilize, to assist with the certification of their Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans. Many of these same commenters added that the self-assessment tool should make clear which components of the plans are required by law, and which components are at the recipient's discretion. A few commenters indicated that an FTA self-assessment tool would not be helpful because agencies differ substantially in their plans and practices.
The ANPRM posed several questions related to the role of States in regards to Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans. In the State's Role section of the ANPRM, FTA sought comments with respect to States and Section 5311 and small Section 5307 public transportation providers, including: (1) The drafting and updating of Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans, (2) certifying Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans, and (3) overseeing and reviewing the implementation of Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans (covered in the subsequent “Oversight of Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans” section).
Given the significant degree of variance in transit agencies' size, complexity, and operating environments, several commenters suggested that FTA should not allow States to develop statewide plans applicable to subrecipients and small public transportation providers. These commenters recommended that FTA require transit agencies to develop their own Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans. Other commenters agreed, stating that Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans should reflect local safety implementation and that a statewide plan may not provide sufficient detail for the management of safety from agency to agency. Other commenters responded with concern that States may not have sufficient resources and technical capacity to develop Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans. Finally, a few commenters suggested that it would be too great of an administrative burden on States to develop Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans.
Many commenters indicated that the ability to modify the statewide safety plan template would be important because safety risks can vary from agency to agency. Several commenters believed that there would be utility with FTA or State-generated templates to support Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan development. A few commenters suggested that FTA allow States to have the option of developing statewide plans, and these commenters recommended that FTA should not require States to develop statewide plans.
In terms of the number of safety plans that a State might be expected to draft, many commenters stated that this number could vary from state-to-state and range anywhere from 20 to 70 plans. Another set of commenters stated that the number of safety plans a State might be expected to draft should be determined by the State.
In addition, FTA seeks comments from the public regarding the following questions: If a State was to draft a statewide plan, how would the plan
With respect to the potential burden of plan development, FTA agrees with commenters that templates and guidance would be beneficial. FTA plans to provide technical assistance, training, and templates to support plan development. Similar to the variety of safety plan templates that FTA has provided in the past as part of its Bus Safety Program, FTA will provide safety plan templates for states and transit agencies, keeping in consideration differences in size, complexity and operating characteristics.
In its ANPRM, FTA sought comments with respect to the type of assistance that should be provided to States that choose to certify to FTA the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans on behalf of small operators. FTA also sought comments on the types of requirements and procedures that FTA should establish for State certification of safety plans.
The State's Role section of the ANPRM posed questions relating to the purview a State might have in overseeing subrecipients, how oversight should be provided, and the time estimated to provide such oversight. In addition, FTA asked those States that currently perform safety operations oversight for non-rail modes, to provide information on these programs. Finally, this section posed questions about the annual review of Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans.
Many commenters suggested that FTA should require State DOTs to maintain lists of certified subrecipients that have established safety plans or are covered by a statewide plan. A few commenters noted that some states already maintain lists of subrecipients. Other commenters suggested that State DOTs should not be required to maintain these types of lists, either because all Section 5311 subrecipients already will be covered by a state management plan, or in their opinion, 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) does not require individual safety plans for State DOT subrecipients so there is no need to maintain a list.
In response to FTA's question regarding current safety oversight practices, some commenters stated that they do not currently perform safety oversight for non-rail modes. Other commenters suggested that the oversight role could be effectively streamlined by combining bus oversight into each State's existing rail oversight program, but other commenters disagreed. Additional commenters stated that combining oversight of rail and non-rail transit safety may work in some States, but it may not work in others, and therefore, FTA should not require transit agencies to combine oversight practices. Some commenters stated that bus and rail system elements are very different, so the oversight programs would be best administered separately. Many commenters recommended that States should have some sort of oversight role of non-rail transit systems and could combine bus oversight into each State's existing rail oversight program, but others disagreed that they could be combined. Finally, several commenters suggested that additional financial and staffing resources would be necessary if FTA requires States to provide oversight of non-rail transit, and that adding additional staff would take considerable time.
Many commenters suggested that FTA should not have a role in reviewing the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans. Other commenters recommended that FTA review the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans through the Triennial and SMR review processes. Finally, many commenters suggested that an annual review would be too frequent for transit agencies that only provide bus service, and an annual review may increase a transit agency's operating costs and be difficult to implement without diverting resources from other agency programs.
With respect to the review of Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans, as mentioned earlier, FTA intends to maintain the authority to review the plans during SMR and Triennial Reviews or at its sole discretion, such as in the event that FTA identifies circumstances posing a safety risk. FTA disagrees with commenters who suggested that an annual review would be too frequent. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(D), transit agencies are required to perform annual reviews of their Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans. FTA proposes that each transit agency document its timeline for an annual review and update, as necessary, of its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan (§ 673.11(a)(7)).
In the Plan Requirements section of the ANPRM, FTA posed a question regarding the role of a transit agency's Board of Directors (or equivalent authority) with the approval of its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan. FTA also posed questions regarding the roles and responsibilities of a transit agency's executive leadership, including the combination of roles and responsibilities, particularly in smaller operations, where the same individual may function as the transit agency's general manager, operations manager, and Safety Officer. Related to this question, FTA asked if the combination of these roles could cause any conflict of interest between safety and any other agency responsibilities.
Regarding the role of State Safety Oversight Agencies, it would be a conflict of interest for those oversight authorities to be involved in the development of the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans that they are charged with overseeing. Consequently, FTA is not proposing that a State Safety Oversight Agency serve as an “Equivalent Authority” for purposes of this rule.
A few commenters suggested that a transit agency could combine the following responsibilities with the Safety Officer position: training, emergency preparedness and management, security, risk management (claims), quality assurance, and environmental management. One commenter also stated that FTA needs to be very diligent about codifying new requirements, and should consider a different set of rules for the 20 to 50 largest transit providers than for smaller operators nationwide.
FTA agrees that many smaller agencies may not have sufficient resources for a dedicated Safety Officer. In many cases, a transit agency's Safety Officer may serve several other functions, including those related to safety, operations, and maintenance. Consequently, FTA proposes that Section 5310, Section 5311, and small public transportation providers may assign an adequately trained Safety Officer to serve other agency functions. For example, it would be reasonable to anticipate that in a very small bus transit agency, the general manager or operations manager may be the same individual as the Safety Officer.
Notwithstanding this proposal for smaller transit providers, FTA believes that it is preferable for larger transit systems to have a Safety Officer who focuses exclusively on safety-related issues, so for rail fixed guideway systems and all other recipients, FTA proposes that the Safety Officer may not also serve in an operational or maintenance capacity, and that the Safety Officer must report directly to the chief executive officer, general manager, president, or other equivalent officer.
In the ANPRM, FTA discussed the statutory requirements regarding coordination of the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan with the National Public Transportation Safety Plan at 49 U.S.C. 5329(b) and the Transit Asset Management System at 49 U.S.C. 5326. FTA also discussed the statutory requirements regarding coordination of the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan with the planning requirements at 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 49 U.S.C. 5304. These provisions require Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and States to coordinate the selection of their performance targets with the performance targets set by FTA recipients for safety and state of good repair.
Many commenters believed that FTA should not establish any other requirements for integrating Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans and Transit Asset Management Plan goals, measures, and targets into each other or the transportation planning process. Other commenters stated that FTA should not establish any requirements regarding coordination. Some commenters stated that the MPO Certification process is the most appropriate venue to ensure that Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan's and the Transit Asset Management Plan's goals, measures, and targets from individual transit systems are integrated into the metropolitan transportation planning process. A small group of commenters recommended that any FTA requirements be as general as possible and not undercut fundamental State and local prerogatives.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(2)(B), FTA must develop and implement a National Public Transportation Safety Plan that includes safety performance criteria and the definition of state of good repair, which must be defined through a transit asset management rulemaking. 49 U.S.C. 5326(b)(1) and (d). Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(E), a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan must include safety performance targets based on the safety performance criteria in the National Public Transportation Safety Plan and the state of good repair standards established under the National Transit Asset Management System. 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(2), 49 U.S.C. 5326(b)(1).
Although not required in this proposed rule, pursuant to the planning requirements at 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304 and the proposed regulations thereunder at 23 CFR part 450 (see 79 FR 31784, June 2, 2014), States and MPOs must integrate into the Statewide and metropolitan planning processes the developed goals, objectives, performance measures, and targets described in the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans and Transit Asset Management Plans, either directly or by reference. Further, in the Statewide Long Range Plans and Metropolitan Transportation Plans, States should and MPOs must (1) describe the safety and asset management performance measures and targets; (2) report on the condition of the transit systems with respect to the safety and asset management performance targets; and (3) report on the progress achieved in meeting the safety and asset management performance targets in comparison with the conditions reported in previous years. 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(B) and (C); 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(7). States and MPOs also must coordinate in the selection of transit safety performance and state of good repair targets with the transit agencies to the maximum extent practicable. 49 U.S.C. 5303(h)(2)(B)(ii); 49 U.S.C. 5304(d)(2)(B)(ii). Finally, transportation improvement programs (TIPs) and statewide transportation improvement programs (STIPs) must include, to the maximum extent practicable, a discussion of the anticipated effects of the TIP or STIP toward achieving the safety and asset management performance targets, linking the safety and asset management investment priorities to those performance targets. 49 U.S.C. 5303(j)(2)(D); 49 U.S.C. 5304(g)(4).
The integration of a transit agency's safety and asset management performance targets into the State and MPO planning process would inform States and MPOs in the setting of their goals, objectives, and investment strategies for public transportation. This integrated planning process should result in States and MPOs being able to identify investment and management strategies to improve or preserve the safety of public transportation systems and the condition of transit capital assets.
In today's NPRM, FTA proposes in § 673.11(a)(3) that transit agencies must include in their Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans performance targets that are based on the safety performance criteria and state of good repair standards established by FTA under its National Public Transportation Safety Plan and the National Transit Asset Management System, respectively. In § 673.15, FTA proposes to require
In addition, the development of safety performance criteria by FTA and safety performance targets by transit agencies support FTA's overall efforts to monitor the safety performance of the public transportation industry, in keeping with recommendations made by the U.S. Government Accountability Office in its January 2011 report, “FTA Programs are Helping Address Transit Agencies' Safety Challenges, but Improved Performance Goals and Measures could Better Focus Efforts” (
FTA is providing additional information regarding the coordination of Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans, the Public Transportation Safety Program, National Public Transportation Safety Plan, and Transit Asset Management Plans in separate NPRMs issued to implement the MAP-21 provisions codified at 49 U.S.C. 5329(b) and 5326, respectively. FTA and FHWA jointly issued an NPRM on June 2, 2014, that proposes new requirements for Metropolitan, Statewide and Non-Metropolitan Planning to implement the new MAP-21 provisions codified at 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304, and in the future, FTA and FHWA will issue a joint final rule to guide the new performance-based approach to planning. See 79 FR 31784.
This section explains that this regulation would apply to all States, local governmental authorities, and other operators of public transportation systems that are recipients of Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan would be required of all operators of public transportation systems, whereas in the past, a “system safety program plan” was only required of rail fixed guideway systems, currently codified in 49 CFR 659.17. This requirement would go into effect one year after the effective date of the final rule.
This section explains that FTA proposes the use of principles and methods of SMS as the basis for this regulation and all other regulations and policies FTA will issue under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5329, to the extent practicable and consistent with law and other applicable requirements (such as those for regulatory review). It further proposes FTA's intent to set standards for SMS that are flexible and can be tailored to the size and operating complexity of the recipient.
This section sets forth a number of proposed definitions, many of which are based on the principles and methods of SMS. For example, readers should refer to “Accountable Executive,” “Hazard,” “Operator of a Public Transportation System,” “Safety Assurance,” “Safety Management System,” “Safety Management Policy,” “Safety Promotion,” and “Safety Risk Management.” In recent years SMS has emerged as the preferable practice for enhancing safety in all modes of transportation, and the Secretary of Transportation instructed each of the Department's operating administrations to develop rules, plans, and programs to apply SMS to their grant recipients and regulated communities. See
In addition, both the Administrator's May 13, 2013 Dear Colleague letter and a set of frequently asked questions about SMS are available on FTA's Web site at
FTA proposes to include a definition for “Accountable Executive” that identifies the person at a transit agency that has the responsibility and accountability for the implementation of SMS and control and direction of the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan and the Transit Asset Management Plan. FTA proposes to include definitions for “Safety Risk Management,” “Safety Risk,” “Safety Assurance,” and “Safety Management Policy,” all key terms to the implementation of SMS.
This section also proposes a number of definitions for terms used repeatedly throughout the other safety programs authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5329. Some of these terms are included in FTA's proposed State Safety Oversight NPRM which was issued prior to this NPRM, but the wording of the definitions has been slightly changed in today's rulemaking for sake of clarity. FTA's intent is for all terms to have the same definition in all of its safety programs, and FTA will reconcile those terms in the appropriate rulemakings. Readers should refer, specifically, to the definitions of “Accident,” “Event,” “Hazard,” “Incident,” “Investigation,” “Occurrence,” and “Transit Agency.”
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(3)(B), FTA must issue a rule that designates which 49 U.S.C. 5307 small public transportation providers may have States draft Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans on their behalf. This section proposes a definition for “Small Public Transportation Provider” (in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(3)(B)) as a Section 5307 recipient or subrecipient that does not operate rail fixed guideway service and operates 100 or fewer vehicles in revenue service.
New definitions are proposed for the terms “National Public Transportation Safety Plan,” “Transit Asset Management Plan,” and “Equivalent Authority,” all of which are consistent with the use of those terms in the statutes and FTA's related rulemakings on safety and transit asset management.
This section proposes the minimum requirements for the elements to be included in a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C 5329(d)(1), this section proposes that each operator of public transportation that receives Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 must develop and certify a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan. As provided by 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(3)(A), § 673.11(d) proposes that a State must draft the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan for 49 U.S.C. 5310 and 5311 providers, as well as for any small public transportation providers as defined in today's NPRM. A State is not required to develop a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan for a particular transit agency that receives Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. 5310, 49 U.S.C. 5311, or a small public transportation provider, if that agency
Section 673.11(a)(1) proposes that the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, and any updates, must be signed by the transit agency's designated Accountable Executive and be approved by the transit agency's Board of Directors, or equivalent entity. This proposal is consistent with the statutory requirement in 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(A) that a Board of Directors (or equivalent entity) approve the transit agency's safety plan. In short, under today's NPRM, accountability for the contents in the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan is formally elevated to the Accountable Executive and Board of Directors. Section 673.11(a)(7) proposes that this occurs annually to a timeline established by the agency, or State, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(D).
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(B), (C), (D), (E), (F), and (G), a transit agency must establish: Methods for identifying and evaluating safety risks throughout all elements of its public transportation system; strategies to minimize the exposure of the public, personnel, and property to hazards and unsafe conditions; a process and timeline for conducting an annual review and update of its safety plan; safety performance targets; a safety officer who reports directly to the general manager, president, or equivalent officer; and a comprehensive staff training program for the operations personnel and personnel directly responsible for safety. These statutory requirements fit into the four key pillars of SMS, as discussed in more detail above: Safety Management Policy, Safety Risk Management, Safety Assurance, and Safety Promotion. Consequently, FTA proposes to require each transit agency to develop and implement an SMS under § 673.11(a)(2); this SMS will satisfy the statutory requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(B), (C), (D), (E), (F), and (G). In this proposal, FTA recognizes that a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan for a large, multi-modal, complex public transportation system most likely will be more complex than that of a very small bus operator. The scalability of SMS will allow transit agencies to develop safety plans that will meet the unique needs of their operating environments.
Proposed § 673.11(a)(3) explains that each Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan must include safety performance targets based on the safety performance criteria and state of good repair measures established by FTA in the National Public Transportation Safety Plan. In the National Public Transportation Safety Plan, FTA is proposing to adopt four initial safety performance criteria: (1) Fatalities, (2) Injuries, (3) Safety Events, and (4) System Reliability.
Section 673.11(a)(4) proposes that a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan must address any future standards or requirements, as applicable, set forth in FTA's Public Transportation Safety Program and FTA's National Public Transportation Safety Plan.
Section 673.11(a)(5) proposes that each transit agency must establish a process and timeline for conducting an annual review and update of its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan.
Proposed § 673.11(a)(6) would require that each rail transit agency include, or incorporate by reference, in its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan an emergency preparedness and response plan. FTA intends that each emergency preparedness and response plan would address, at a minimum: The assignment of employee responsibilities, as necessary and appropriate, during an emergency; the integration of responses to all hazards, as appropriate; and coordination with Federal, State, regional, and local officials with roles and responsibilities for emergency preparedness and response in the transit agency's service area. FTA understands that a transit agency may have developed an emergency preparedness and response plan that addresses these minimum requirements in accordance with regulations from other Federal and State agencies. Notably, FTA currently requires rail fixed guideway systems to have emergency preparedness plans through the State Safety Oversight Rule at 49 CFR 659.19(k). FTA intends to require rail transit systems to continue to implement the twenty-one elements of their system safety program plans as currently required under 49 CFR part 659; the pillars of SMS cover the remaining twenty elements. FTA has developed a crosswalk analysis between each of the twenty-one elements of system safety program plans and each of the elements of SMS. FTA is adding this crosswalk to the docket, and FTA is making the crosswalk available on its Web site at
FTA notes that there are safety models that include emergency preparedness as a key element. For example, FAA requires certain air carriers to have emergency preparedness plans.
In addition to the above general requirements, FTA would expect a transit agency to comply with all other applicable Federal, State, and local requirements, laws, regulations, and codes as they may relate to safety.
Section 673.11(b) proposes that the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan may include more than one mode of service. However, if a transit agency has a safety plan for its commuter rail service, passenger ferry service, or aviation service, then the transit agency may not use that plan for purposes of satisfying 49 CFR part 673; the transit agency must develop a separate Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan consistent with this part. FTA invites specific comment on how FTA could support the development of Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans for Transit Agencies of different sizes and modes.
Section 673.11(c) proposes that a transit agency must maintain its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan in
Section 673.11(d) proposes that a State must draft and certify a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan on behalf of any 49 U.S.C. 5310, 49 U.S.C. 5311, or small public transportation provider. A State is not required to draft a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan if a 49 U.S.C. 5310, 49 U.S.C. 5311, or small public transportation provider notifies the State that it will draft its own plan. In either instance, the transit agency must carry out the plan.
If a State drafts and certifies a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan on behalf of a transit agency, and the transit agency later opts to draft and certify its own Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, then the transit agency would be required to notify the State, and the transit agency would have one year from the date of the notification to draft and certify a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan that is compliant with this part.
Section 673.11(e) proposes that any rail fixed guideway system that had a system safety program plan, as per requirements set forth in 49 CFR part 659 as of October 1, 2012, may keep that plan in effect until one year after the effective date of the final rule.
§ 673.11(f) proposes that agencies that operate passenger ferries regulated by USCG or commuter rail service regulated by FRA are not required to develop agency safety plans for those modes of service.
Section 673.13(a) provides that not later than one year after the effective date of the final rule, each transit agency must certify its compliance with the requirements of this part. For transit agencies that receive Federal funding under 49 U.S.C. 5310, 49 U.S.C. 5311, and those identified as small public transportation providers under 49 U.S.C. 5307, a State must certify compliance unless the provider opts to draft and certify its own safety plan. In those cases where a State certifies compliance for 49 U.S.C. 5310, 49 U.S.C. 5311, or small public transportation provider under 49 U.S.C. 5307, this certification must also occur within one year after the effective date of the final rule.
In addition to certification, Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans that are developed by transit agencies with rail transit systems must also be reviewed and approved by the appropriate State Safety Oversight Agency as per the requirements set forth in 49 CFR part 659, and the future recodification of those requirements at 49 CFR part 674. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(4)(iv), State Safety Oversight Agencies must have the authority to review, approve, oversee, and enforce the implementation of the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans of transit agencies operating rail fixed guideway public transportation systems.
Section 673.13(b) requires that each transit agency or State certify compliance with part 673 on an annual basis.
This section proposes to require a State or transit agency to make its safety performance targets available to States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations to aid in the planning process. This section also proposes to require, to the maximum extent practicable, a State or transit agency to coordinate with States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations in the selection of State and MPO safety performance targets.
This section outlines the SMS elements that each transit agency must establish in its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan. Under today's NPRM, each transit agency would be required to implement an SMS; however, FTA would require that each transit agency would scale the SMS to the size, scope, and complexity of the transit agency's operations. Each transit agency would be required to establish its activities to include the four main pillars of SMS: (1) Safety Management Policy; (2) Safety Risk Management; (3) Safety Assurance; and (4) Safety Promotion. FTA expects that the scope and detail for each activity will vary based on the size and complexity of the system. FTA anticipates that activities, and documentation of those activities, for a small bus transit agency will be substantially less than those of a large multi-modal system. To help clarify SMS development and implementation, FTA intends to provide guidance to the industry, including templates designed to accommodate the variance in transit system mode, size and complexity.
Under proposed § 673.23(a), a transit agency would be required to establish the organizational accountabilities and responsibilities necessary for implementing SMS and capture these under the first component of SMS, Safety Management Policy. The success of a transit agency's SMS is dependent upon the commitment of the entire organization and begins with the highest levels of transit agency management. FTA expects that the level of detail for organizational accountabilities and responsibilities would be commensurate with the size and complexity of the transit agency.
The Safety Management Policy statement would contain the transit agency's safety objectives. These objectives would include a broad description of the agency's overarching safety goals, which would be based on that agency's unique needs. The Safety Management Policy statement also would include a reference to the agency's safety objectives and performance targets.
Under § 673.23(b), a transit agency would need to include in its Safety Management Policy statement a process that allows employees to report safety conditions to senior management. This process would provide protections for employees who report safety conditions to senior management and a description of behaviors that are unacceptable and that would not be exempt from disciplinary actions. This is a critical SMS element for ensuring safety. A reporting program allows employees who identify safety hazards and risks in the day-to-day duties to directly notify senior personnel, without fear of reprisal, so that the hazards and risks can be mitigated or eliminated. NTSB has emphasized the need for transit agencies to have confidential employee safety reporting programs,
Section 673.23(c) proposes that the Safety Management Policy statement is communicated throughout the transit agency, as well as to the Board of Directors (or equivalent authority), and is made readily available to all employees of the transit agency and contractors.
Section 673.23(d) proposes that the transit agency establish its accountabilities and responsibilities necessary to meet the established safety performance targets. In general, a transit agency would need to describe its organizational structure and the procedures it must adopt in order for it to meet its safety performance targets. A transit agency would describe the authorities, accountabilities, and responsibilities for safety management as they relate to the development and management of the transit agency's SMS. The level of detail in this section would be commensurate with the size and complexity of transit agency operations. At a minimum, a transit agency would need to identify an Accountable Executive, a Chief Safety Officer or SMS Executive, and agency leadership, executive management, and key staff who would be responsible for the implementation of a transit agency's safety plan.
Section 673.25(a) proposes that each transit agency establish and implement its process for managing safety risk, including the identification of hazards, analysis of hazards, evaluation of safety risk, and mitigation of safety risk, in all elements of its public transportation system, including changes to its public transportation system that may impact safety performance. At a minimum, FTA would expect a transit agency to apply its safety risk management process to the design of a new public transportation system, changes to its existing public transportation system, new operations of service to the public, new operations or maintenance procedures or organizational change, and changes to operations or maintenance procedures. Additionally, FTA would expect a transit agency to develop measures to ensure that safety principles, requirements, and representatives are included in the transit agency's procurement process.
Section 673.25(b)(1) would require a transit agency to establish a process for hazard identification and analysis, including the identification of the sources, both proactive and reactive, for identifying hazards. Activities for hazard identification analysis could include formalized processes where a transit agency identifies hazards throughout its entire system, logs them into a database, performs risk analyses, and identifies mitigation measures. These activities also could include safety focus groups, reviews of safety reporting trends, and for smaller bus systems, it could mean sitting down with a few operators in a room, discussing hazards on the system, deciding which ones pose the greatest risk, and then developing mitigation.
A transit agency must apply its process for hazard identification and analysis to all aspects of its system, including but not limited to its operational activities, system expansions, and state of good repair activities. A transit agency should consider the results of its asset condition assessments while performing safety hazard identification activities within its SMS. The results of the condition assessments, and subsequent SMS analysis, will inform a transit agency's determination as to whether an asset meets the state of good repair standards under 49 CFR part 625.
Section 673.25(b)(2) would require a transit agency to include, as a source for hazard identification and analysis, data and information provided by an oversight authority and the FTA.
FTA proposes that hazard identification and analysis activities are commensurate with the size of the transit agency operations. For example, FTA would anticipate that the number of identified hazards for a small, rural bus system may be less than the number of hazards identified for a large, multi-modal system.
Section 673.25(c) proposes that a transit agency establish activities for the evaluation and prioritization of safety risks related to the potential consequences of hazards identified and analyzed in § 673.25(b). Transit agencies would need to evaluate safety risks in terms of both probability (the likelihood of the hazard producing the potential consequences) and severity (the damage, or the potential consequences of a hazard, that may be caused if the hazard is not eliminated or its consequences are not successfully mitigated).
A transit agency also would need to establish criteria for the development of safety risk mitigations that are necessary based on the results of the agency's safety risk evaluation. For example, a transit agency may decide that the criteria for developing safety risk mitigations could be the identification of a safety risk, benefit-cost analysis, a system level change (such as the addition of new technology on a vehicle), a change to operational procedures, or the expansion of service. To further illustrate these examples, a transit agency may color code different levels of safety risk (“red” as high, “yellow” as medium, and “green” as minor) and develop different types of safety risk mitigations to correspond to those levels.
Section 673.27(a) proposes that a transit agency develop and implement safety assurance activities that include safety performance monitoring and measurement and continuous improvement. FTA would expect that a transit agency's safety assurance activities would be scaled to the size and complexity of its operations, with the objective being that a transit agency can accurately determine whether or not it is meeting its safety objectives and safety performance targets, as well as the extent to which its SMS is being implemented effectively.
Each transit agency would be required to conduct an annual review of its safety risk mitigations. FTA anticipates that each transit agency would identify those safety risk mitigations that should be reviewed each year to ensure they are still effective.
In § 673.27(b), FTA proposes that a transit agency identify the data and information that it must collect from its operations, maintenance, and public transportation services so that it may monitor the agency's safety performance as well as the effectiveness of its SMS. Under this section, a transit agency would be responsible for the ongoing monitoring of its operations and maintenance protocols and procedures, and any safety risk mitigations, to assure that they are being implemented as planned.
This section proposes that a transit agency investigate safety events (as defined in this NPRM) and any reports from non-compliance with applicable regulations, standards, and applicable legal authority. Finally, the section would require the continuous monitoring of information reported through the employee safety reporting program.
In § 673.27(c), a transit agency would be required to manage changes in its system. A transit agency would be required to develop a process for identifying and assessing changes that may introduce new hazards or impact the transit agency's safety performance. If a transit agency determines that a change might impact safety, then the transit agency would need to evaluate the change using Safety Risk Management activities established under § 673.25.
In § 673.27(d), a transit agency would be required to regularly assess its safety performance. If a transit agency identifies any deficiencies during a safety performance assessment, it would be required to develop and carry out,
This section proposes that a transit agency establish competencies and training for all agency employees directly responsible for the management of safety, and establish and maintain the means for communicating safety performance and SMS information. Section 673.29(a) would require a transit agency to establish a comprehensive safety training program. Through the safety training programs, a transit agency would require each employee, as applicable, to complete training to enable the person to meet his or her role and responsibilities for safety management, and to complete refresher training, as necessary, to stay current with the agency's safety management practices and procedures.
Section 673.29(b) would require a transit agency to ensure that all employees are aware of any policies, activities, and procedures that are related to their role and safety management responsibilities. Safety communications would include information on hazards and safety risks that are relevant to the employee's role and responsibilities; explain reasons that a transit agency introduces or changes policies, activities or procedures; and communicates to an employee when actions are taken in response to reports submitted by the employee through an employee safety reporting program. FTA expects that each transit agency would define the means and mechanisms for effective safety communication based on their organization, structure, and size of operations.
This section proposes that transit agencies keep records of their documents that meet the requirements of this part. FTA would expect a transit agency to maintain documents that set forth its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, including those related to the implementation of its SMS, such as results from SMS processes and activities. For the purpose of reviews, investigations, audits, or other purposes, the section proposes that these documents be made available to FTA, State Safety Oversight Agencies in the case of rail transit systems, and other Federal agencies as appropriate. A transit agency would be required to maintain any of these documents for a minimum of three years.
This section proposes that, in addition to the documents indicated above, a transit agency must maintain, at a minimum, the following records: safety risk mitigations, results from a transit agency's safety performance assessment, and records of employee safety training. FTA anticipates that the amount of records maintained by each transit agency would vary based on the agency's size and complexity. For example, it is reasonable to expect that a smaller agency would have fewer safety risk mitigations and employee training records to maintain, whereas a large transit agency may have a robust safety management information system to track and monitor its safety risk mitigations, and perhaps another system dedicated to tracking employee safety training. For safety performance monitoring and measurement, the section proposes that the transit agency maintain documentation that it would use to determine how well it is meeting its safety objectives and safety performance targets, as well as safety performance indicators used to determine the effectiveness of SMS implementation.
Executive Orders and 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society; assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives; and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximizes net benefits—including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. Executive Order 13563 also emphasizes the importance of harmonizing rules and promoting flexibility.
This proposed rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. FTA has determined that this proposed rule likely is “economically significant” under Executive Order 12866, in that it may lead to transit agencies making investment and prioritization decisions related to mitigation of safety risks that would result in economic impacts that could exceed $100 million in a year. However, as discussed in greater detail below, FTA was unable to quantify the potential impacts of this rule beyond the costs for transit agencies to develop and implement Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans. FTA was able to estimate costs of approximately $86 million in the first year, and $70 million per year thereafter. These costs result from developing and certifying safety plans, documenting the SMS approach, implementing SMS, and associated recordkeeping. The estimated costs do not include the costs of actions that transit agencies would be required to take to mitigate risk as a result of implementing this rule, such as vehicle modifications, additional training, technology investments, or changes to operating procedures. The annualized cost of proposed requirements is estimated to be approximately $71 million. FTA requests comment on any information that could assist in quantifying the costs, benefits, and transfers associated with this rulemaking.
FTA has placed in the docket a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) that analyzes the benefits and costs of the proposed regulatory changes in accordance with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) policy.
FTA also conducted this analysis to satisfy the statutory requirement at 49 U.S.C. 5329(h)(1) that it take into consideration the costs and benefits related to each action that it takes under 49 U.S.C. 5329, including this proposed rule.
The proposed rule would require all operators of public transportation systems that receive Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 to develop and implement Public Transportation Safety Plans as required by Section 20021 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), now codified at 49 U.S.C. 5329, using the SMS approach.
SMS is a flexible, scalable approach to safety that has been widely adopted across multiple modes of transportation in both the public and private sectors. It employs a systematic, data-driven approach in which risks to safety are identified, then controlled or mitigated to acceptable levels. SMS brings
In addition to responding to the specific legislative mandate, the proposed rule responds to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations about expanding the use of SMS to reduce the risks of transit crashes. From 2004 to 2013, NTSB reported on nine transit accidents that, collectively, resulted in 15 fatalities, 297 injuries, and over $30 million in property damages. Although transit systems have historically been among the safest means of surface transportation, the transit industry is facing increased pressures at a time when ridership is growing, infrastructure is aging, and large numbers of the workforce are retiring. During that same 2004-2013 time period, transit agencies reported over 40,000 incidents, more than 2,000 fatalities, and over 76,000 injuries to FTA's National Transit Database.
This RIA provides quantitative estimates of the expected compliance costs associated with the proposed rule. Costs for transit agencies were estimated based on the staff labor costs associated with implementing the requirements of the proposed rule, with adjustments for agency size and for agencies' existing level of maturity with SMS approaches. Three main cost areas were estimated: (1) Developing and certifying safety plans; (2) implementing and documenting the SMS approach; and (3) associated recordkeeping. Staff time was monetized using data on wage rates and benefits in the transit industry. Over the 20-year analysis period, total costs are estimated at $752 million in present value (using a 7% discount rate), or the equivalent of $71 million per year.
As previously stated, FTA was unable to estimate the cost of actions that agencies would take to mitigate or eliminate safety problems identified through implementation of their safety plans. This is because FTA is unaware of information sources or methods to predict with sufficient confidence the number or type of safety problems agencies will identify through implementation of their safety plans, or the number, type, and cost of actions that agencies will take to address such problems. For similar reasons, FTA also is unable to estimate the benefits of these actions. FTA seeks information from the public for analyzing the benefits and costs of actions by agencies to mitigate or eliminate safety problems such as the number, types, benefits, and costs of such actions.
With respect to State and MPO performance target setting, FTA forecasted benefits based on the estimated impact of the SMS approach on reducing transit crashes and their associated societal costs, including fatal and non-fatal injuries, property damage, and other costs. Safety benefits were calculated for both bus and rail modes. However, since the rail agencies are subject to additional safety rules, analysis also was undertaken excluding the rail modes. Benefits were monetized using information on transit crash costs, including direct costs and USDOT-standard statistical values for fatality and injury prevention. Although many other sectors report reductions in safety incident after adopting SMS, it is not possible to transfer that experience to the transit industry due to the differences in organizational structures and practices.
FTA could not estimate the benefits of this proposed rule. To estimate safety benefits, one would need to understand the exact causes of the accidents and the factors that may cause future accidents. This information is generally unknown in this sector, given the infrequency and diversity of the type of safety incidents that occur. Instead, FTA conducted a breakeven analysis that compares the costs that FTA was able to estimate (absent the cost of mitigations) to a pool of potential safety benefits. The pool of safety benefits is an estimate of the cost of bus and rail incidents over a future 20-year period. The estimate is an extrapolation based on the cost of bus and rail incidents that occurred from 2010 to 2014.
As the table below shows, the amount of incident reduction needed to breakeven with the costs of the proposed rule that were estimated is low. However, benefits of SMS primarily will result from mitigating actions. As previously stated, the benefits and costs of such actions are not accounted for in this analysis. FTA has not estimated the benefits of implementing SMS without mitigating actions, but expects such benefits are unlikely to be large. Estimated costs for the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans include certain activities that likely will yield safety improvements, such as improved communication, identification of hazards, and greater employee awareness. It is plausible that these changes alone could produce accident reductions that surpass estimated costs.
This analysis assumes that benefits are realized from reducing both rail and bus incidents after adjusting for the estimated breakeven threshold for the proposed State Safety Oversight and Safety Training Rules (RINs 2132-AB19 and 2132-AB25 respectively), to which the rail agencies also will be subject when finalized.
Under the performance management framework established by MAP-21, States, MPOs, and transit providers must establish targets in key national performance areas to document expectations for future performance. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5303(h)(2)(B)(ii) and 5304(d)(2)(B)(ii), States and MPOs must coordinate the selection of their performance targets, to the maximum extent practicable, with performance targets set by transit providers under 49 U.S.C. 5326 (transit asset management) and 49 U.S.C. 5329 (safety), to ensure consistency.
In the joint FTA and FHWA Planning NPRM, both agencies indicated that their performance-related rules would implement the basic elements of a performance management framework, including the establishment of measures and associated target setting. Because the performance-related rules implement these elements and the difficulty in estimating costs of target setting associated with unknown measures, the joint FTA and FHWA Planning NPRM did not assess these costs. Rather, FTA and FHWA proposed that the costs associated with target setting at every level would be captured in each agency's respective “performance management” rules. For example, FHWA's second performance management rule NPRM, published after the joint FTA and FHWA Planning NPRM, assumes that the incremental costs to States and MPOs for establishing performance targets reflect the incremental wage costs for an operations manager and a statistician to analyze performance-related data.
The RIA that accompanied the joint FTA and FHWA Planning Final Rule captured the costs of the effort by States, MPOs, and transit providers to coordinate in the setting of State and MPO transit performance targets for state of good repair and safety. FTA believes that the cost to MPOs and States to set transit performance targets is included within the costs of coordination. FTA requests comments on this point. Will there be any additional costs for States and MPOs in target setting beyond the coordination costs included in the planning rule? If so, what would those costs be? To the extent that responses to these questions cause the agency to adjust any of its cost assumptions, those changes will be reflected in the final rule and any related information collections.
A summary of the benefits and costs of this proposed rule is provided in Table 3 below, which also is included in Table 1 above.
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), FTA has evaluated the effects of this proposed rule on small entities and has determined that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed rule would affect roughly 2,125 small entities, most of which are small government entities and small non-profit organizations that operate public transportation systems in non-urbanized areas. Compliance costs will vary according to agency size and complexity, the extent of current SMS practices, and the extent of current asset management practices. Costs are illustrated by an example calculation for a small operator of a public transportation system that receives Formula Grants for Rural Areas under 49 U.S.C. 5311, for which compliance costs range from an average of $12,000 per Section 5310 agency, to roughly $31,000 per small Section 5307 agency (these estimates exclude the cost of mitigating actions). For the sake of comparison, while transit agency operations budgets vary significantly, the average for small Section 5307 agencies is around $6.3 million per year, and Section 5311 agencies average $1 million per year. Thus, the estimated costs of the rule are around 0.5% to 1.5% of agency budgets. FTA proposes to mitigate the costs for smaller operators of public transportation systems by requiring the States in which they are located to draft and certify Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans on their behalf, unless the operator chooses to develop and certify its own plan. Additionally, to mitigate the costs for smaller operators of public transportation systems, FTA is proposing to adopt the SMS approach to safety, which is scalable and tailored for the specific needs of a particular transit agency.
Overall, while the proposed rule would affect a substantial number of small entities, these impacts would not be significant due to the low magnitude of the costs. Moreover, FTA has designed the proposed rule to allow flexibility for small entities. FTA is providing additional analysis of the Regulatory Flexibility Act's application to this proposed rule in Regulatory Impact Analysis posted to the docket.
This proposed rule will not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48; codified at 2 U.S.C. 1501
Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 1501(8), one of the purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is to consider “the effect of . . . Federal statutes and regulations that impose Federal intergovernmental mandates.” The term “Federal intergovernmental mandate” is defined at 2 U.S.C. 658(5)(A)(i) to mean “any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments, except . . . a condition of Federal assistance.”
Given the fact that FTA's authorizing statute at 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) makes the development and implementation of Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans a condition of FTA Federal financial assistance, and given that FTA is proposing to require transit agencies to annually certify that they have safety plans consistent with this rule as a condition of that Federal financial assistance, this proposed rule will not impose unfunded mandates.
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria established by Executive Order 13132, and FTA has determined that this proposed rule will not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. FTA has also determined that this proposed rule will not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' abilities to discharge traditional State governmental functions.
The regulations effectuating Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this proposed rule.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
FTA seeks public comment to evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FTA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; whether the estimation of the burden of the proposed information collection is accurate, including the validity of the methodologies and assumptions used; ways in which the quality, utility, and clarity of the information can be enhanced; and whether the burden can be minimized, including through the use of automated collection techniques
Readers should note that the information collection would be specific to each operator of a public transportation system in an effort to facilitate and record the operator's safety responsibilities and activities. The paperwork burden for each operator of a public transportation system would be proportionate to the size and complexity of its operations. For example, an operator of both a rail fixed guideway system and a bus system may need to generate more documentation than an operator of a bus system only.
Also, readers should note that FTA already requires rail fixed guideway public transportation systems to develop System Safety Program Plans and System Security Plans in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR part 659. FTA collects information from States and State Safety Oversight Agencies regarding these plans, and FTA anticipates that operators of rail fixed guideway systems will utilize some of this documentation for purposes of developing Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans. Please see FTA's currently approved collection, 2132-0558, available at
The National Environmental
Executive Order 12898 directs every Federal agency to make environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing the effects of all programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The DOT's environmental justice initiatives accomplish this goal by involving the potentially affected public in developing transportation projects that fit harmoniously within their communities without sacrificing safety or mobility. FTA has developed a program circular addressing environmental justice in transit projects, Circular 4703.1,
This proposed rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
FTA has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. FTA certifies that this proposed rule will not cause an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.
FTA has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13175 (Nov. 6, 2000), and has determined that it will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.
FTA has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). FTA has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant energy action under that Executive Order because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
Any individual is able to search the electronic form of all comments received on any FTA docket by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other entity). You may review USDOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
This rulemaking is issued under the authority of section 20021 of MAP-21, which requires public transportation agencies to develop and implement comprehensive safety plans. This authority was reauthorized under the FAST Act. The authority is codified at 49 U.S.C. 5329(d).
A RIN is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN set forth in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
Mass transportation, Safety.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.91.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of 49
49 U.S.C. 5329(d), 5334; 49 CFR 1.91.
This part applies to any State, local governmental authority, and any other operator of a public transportation system that receives Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has adopted the principles and methods of Safety Management Systems (SMS) as the basis for enhancing the safety of public transportation in the United States. All rules, regulations, policies, guidance, best practices, and technical assistance administered under FTA's safety authority will, to the extent practicable and consistent with legal and other applicable requirements, follow the principles and methods of SMS. This part sets standards for the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, which will be responsive to FTA's Public Transportation Safety Program, and reflect the specific safety objectives, standards, and priorities of each transit agency. Each Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan will incorporate SMS principles and methods tailored to the size, complexity, and scope of the public transportation system and the environment in which it operates.
As used in this part:
(1) Requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days from the date of the injury was received;
(2) Results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes, or noses);
(3) Causes severe hemorrhages, nerve, muscle, or tendon damage;
(4) Involves any internal organ; or
(5) Involves second- or third-degree burns, or any burns affecting more than 5 percent of the body surface.
(a) A transit agency must within one calendar year after publication of the final rule, establish a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan that meets the requirements of this part and, at a minimum, consists of the following elements:
(1) The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, and subsequent updates, must be signed by the Accountable Executive and approved by the agency's Board of Directors, or an entity equivalent to a Board of Directors.
(2) The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan must document the processes and activities related to Safety Management System (SMS) implementation, as required under Subpart C of this Part.
(3) The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan must include performance targets based on the safety performance criteria established under the National Public Transportation Safety Plan, and the state of good repair standards established in the regulations that implement the National Transit Asset Management System and are included in the National Public Transportation Safety Plan.
(4) The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan must address all applicable requirements and standards as set forth in FTA's Public Transportation Safety Program and the National Public Transportation Safety Plan. Compliance with the minimum safety performance standards authorized under 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(2)(C) is not required until standards have been established through the rulemaking process.
(5) Each transit agency must establish a process and timeline for conducting an annual review and update of the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan.
(6) A rail transit agency also must include in its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan an emergency preparedness and response plan or procedures that addresses, at a minimum, the assignment of employee responsibilities during an emergency; and coordination with Federal, State, regional, and local officials with roles and responsibilities for emergency preparedness and response in the transit agency's service area.
(b) A transit agency may develop one Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan for all modes of service, or may develop a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan for each mode of service not subject to safety regulation by another Federal entity.
(c) A transit agency must maintain its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan in accordance with the recordkeeping requirements in subpart D of this part.
(d) A State must draft and certify a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan on behalf of any transit agency that receives Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. 5310, 49 U.S.C. 5311, and any small public transportation provider located in that State. A State is not required to draft a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan for a particular transit agency that receives Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. 5310, 49 U.S.C. 5311, or a small public transportation provider, if that agency notifies the State that it will draft its own plan. In each instance, the transit agency must carry out the plan. If a State drafts and certifies a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan on behalf of a transit agency, and the transit agency later opts to draft and certify its own Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, then the transit agency must notify the State. The transit agency has one year from the date of the notification to draft and certify a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan that is compliant with this part.
(e) Any rail fixed guideway public transportation system that had a System Safety Program Plan compliant with 49 CFR part 659 as of October 1, 2012, may keep that plan in effect until [one year after the effective date of the final rule].
(f) Agencies that operate passenger ferries regulated by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) or commuter rail service regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) are not required to develop agency safety plans for those modes of service.
(a) Each transit agency, or State as authorized in § 673.11(d), must certify that it has established a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan meeting the requirements of this part by [one year after the effective date of the final rule]. A State Safety Oversight Agency must review and approve a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan developed by rail fixed guideway system, as authorized in 49 U.S.C. 5329(e) and its implementing regulations at 49 CFR part 674.
(b) On an annual basis, a transit agency or State must certify its compliance with this part.
(a) A State or transit agency must make its safety performance targets available to States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations to aid in the planning process.
(b) To the maximum extent practicable, a State or transit agency must coordinate with States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations in the selection of State and MPO safety performance targets.
Each transit agency must establish and implement a Safety Management System under this part. A transit agency Safety Management System must be appropriately scaled to the size, scope and complexity of transit agency and include the following elements:
(a) Safety Management Policy as described in § 673.23 of this subpart;
(b) Safety Risk Management as described in § 673.25 of this subpart;
(c) Safety Assurance as described in § 673.27 of this subpart; and
(d) Safety Promotion as described in § 673.29 of this subpart.
(a) A transit agency must establish its organizational accountabilities and responsibilities and have a written statement of safety management policy that includes the agency's safety objectives and safety performance targets.
(b) A transit agency must establish a process that allows employees to report safety conditions to senior management, protections for employees who report safety conditions to senior management, and a description of employee behaviors that may result in disciplinary action.
(c) The safety management policy must be communicated throughout the agency's organization.
(d) The transit agency must establish the necessary authorities, accountabilities, and responsibilities for the management of safety amongst the following individuals within its organization, as they relate to the development and management of the transit agency's Safety Management System (SMS):
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(a)
(b)
(2) A transit agency must include, as a source for hazard identification and analysis, data, and information provided by an oversight authority and the FTA.
(c) Safety risk evaluation and mitigation. (1) A transit agency must establish activities to evaluate and prioritize the safety risk associated with the potential consequences of safety hazards. Safety risks must be evaluated in terms of probability and severity and take into account mitigations already in place to reduce the probability or severity of the potential consequence(s) analyzed.
(2) A transit agency must establish criteria for the development of safety risk mitigations that are necessary based on the results of the agency's safety risk evaluation.
(a)
(b)
(1) Monitor its system for compliance with, and sufficiency of, the agency's procedures for operations and maintenance;
(2) Monitor its operations to identify hazards not identified through the Safety Risk Management process established in § 673.25 of this subpart;
(3) Monitor its operations to identify any safety risk mitigations that may be ineffective, inappropriate, or were not implemented as intended;
(4) Investigate safety events to identify causal factors; and
(5) Monitor information reported through any internal safety reporting programs.
(c)
(2) If a transit agency determines that a change may impact its safety performance, then the transit agency must evaluate the proposed change through its Safety Risk Management process.
(d)
(2) If a transit agency identifies any deficiencies as part of its safety performance assessment, then the transit agency must develop and carry out, under the direction of the Accountable Executive, a plan to address the identified safety deficiencies.
(a)
(b)
At all times, a transit agency must maintain documents that set forth its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, including those related to the implementation of its Safety Management System (SMS), and results from SMS processes and activities. A transit agency must maintain documents that are included in whole, or by reference, that describe the programs, policies, and procedures that the agency uses to carry out its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan. These documents must be made available upon request by the Federal Transit Administration or other Federal entity, or a State Safety Oversight Agency having jurisdiction. A transit agency must maintain these documents for a minimum of three years.
In addition to any documents or records required elsewhere in this part, a transit agency must maintain records of the following items:
(a) Safety risk mitigations developed in accordance with § 673.25;
(b) Results from the transit agency's safety performance assessments as required under § 673.27; and
(c) Employee safety training taken for purposes of compliance with this part and the Public Transportation Agency Safety Training Certification Program.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of availability of proposed National Public Transportation Safety Plan; request for comments.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) invites public comment on a proposed National Public Transportation Safety Plan (National Safety Plan). FTA's proposed National Safety Plan is intended to guide the national effort in managing the safety risks within the Nation's public transportation systems. The direction and guidance set forth in the National Safety Plan is intended to guide FTA's partners within the transit industry towards improving an already excellent safety record.
The proposed National Safety Plan has been placed in the docket and posted on the FTA Web site. If adopted, the National Safety Plan will be the primary communication tool for all of FTA's safety programs.
Comments must be received on or before April 5, 2016. Any comments received beyond this deadline will be considered to the extent practicable.
FTA will hold a series of public webinars to discuss the contents of the proposed National Public Transportation Safety Plan and respond to clarifying questions. Please check FTA's Web site at
You may submit comments to DOT docket number FTA-2015-0017 by any of the following methods:
All comments received will be posted, without change and including any personal information provided, to
For program matters, Brian Alberts, Office of System Safety, (202) 366-1783 or
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(b), FTA is obliged to create and carry out a National Public Transportation Safety Plan to improve the safety of all public transportation systems that receive Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. FTA seeks public comment on this first proposed National Safety Plan. The proposed National Safety Plan is available in its entirety on the agency's public Web site at
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(b), a National Safety Plan must include, at minimum, the following:
• Safety performance criteria for all modes of public transportation;
• The definition of the term “state of good repair,” established under a rulemaking to implement a National Transit Asset Management System pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5326(b);
• Minimum safety performance standards for public transportation vehicles used in revenue operations that are not otherwise regulated by any other Federal agency, and that, to the extent practicable, take into account relevant recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board and other industry best practices and standards;
• Minimum safety standards to ensure the safe operation of public transportation systems that are not related to vehicle performance standards;
• A safety certification training program.
The proposed National Safety Plan addresses each of the aforementioned statutory requirements. In addition, the proposed National Safety Plan would serve as FTA's primary tool for communicating with the transit industry about the industry's safety performance.
The proposed National Safety Plan is organized into the following four chapters:
FTA expects to update the National Safety Plan, from time to time, in response to trends in risk management in the transit industry, emerging technologies, best practices, findings from research, and other industry developments. FTA will establish all future editions of the National Safety Plan through public notice-and-comment.
FTA plans to base each edition of the National Safety Plan on the principles and methods of Safety Management Systems (SMS): A formal, top-down, organization-wide approach to managing safety risks and ensuring the effectiveness of a public transportation agency's safety risk mitigations. In his
In this issue of the
Readers should please note that two key elements of the National Safety Plan—the definition of
Two other key elements of the National Safety Plan—the minimum safety performance standards for public transportation vehicles used in revenue operations and minimum operational standards—may eventually be the subject of rulemaking. For the time being, however, FTA is proposing to establish voluntary vehicle performance standards and voluntary operational standards in this first iteration of the National Safety Plan. FTA seeks specific comment on the following questions related to the proposed standard:
1. Has your agency adopted any of the proposed voluntary standards?
2. What is the cost to your agency of implementing the proposed voluntary standards?
3. What other standards has your agency adopted?
4. In what other areas should FTA establish standards?
Other elements of the National Safety Plan, including, specifically, the safety advisories, directives, and reports that FTA will issue, from time to time, need not be the subject of notice-and-comment, but the agency will include them in the National Safety Plan for the purpose of communicating with the transit industry and the public on matters of general interest in improving the safety of public transportation. After reviewing and responding to the comments received on this proposed National Public Transportation Safety Plan, FTA will issue a final National Safety Plan.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received an application from ExxonMobil Alaska LNG LLC (EMALL) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to a geophysical and geotechnical survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska. This action is proposed to occur for 16 weeks. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to EMALL to incidentally take, by Level B Harassment only, marine mammals during the specified activity.
Comments and information must be received no later than March 7, 2016.
Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox address for providing email comments is
An electronic copy of the application may be obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (see
Sara Young, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8484.
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 October 5, 2015, NMFS received an application from EMALL for the taking of marine mammals incidental to a geotechnical and geophysical survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska. NMFS determined that the application was adequate and complete on December 22, 2015.
EMALL proposes to conduct a geophysical and geotechnical survey in Cook Inlet to investigate the technical suitability of a pipeline study corridor across Cook Inlet and potential marine terminal locations near Nikiski. The proposed activity would occur for 16 weeks during the 2016 open water season beginning on March 1, 2016. The following specific aspects of the proposed activities are likely to result in the take of marine mammals: Use of a seismic airgun, sub-bottom profiler (chirp and boomer), and a vibracore. Take, by Level B Harassment only, of individuals of four species of marine mammals is anticipated to result from the specified activities.
EMALL received an Authorization for 2015 to conduct a similar suite of activities using the same technologies. The Authorization was issued for 84 days beginning August 14, 2015 (80 FR 50989).
The planned geophysical surveys involve remote sensors including single beam echo sounder, multibeam echo sounder, sub-bottom profiler (chirp and boomer), 0.983 L (60 in
EMALL expects operations to occur 102 days during the 2016 open-water season between March 2016 and November 2016. Operations in the pipeline survey area would occur for approximately 46 days, and operations in the marine facilities survey area and
Three separate areas will be surveyed in Cook Inlet. The survey areas are shown in Figure 1 of the application. The survey areas were sized to provide siting flexibility for future infrastructure to avoid existing hazards.
The pipeline survey area (Figure 2 in the application) extends in the marine waters of Cook Inlet from the northwest shoreline of Upper Cook Inlet near the communities of Tyonek and Beluga to the southeast shoreline of Upper Cook Inlet near Boulder Point on the Kenai Peninsula. This survey area is approximately 47 km (29 mi) in length and averages approximately 16 km (10 mi) wide. The pipeline survey area is 795 km
The marine facilities survey area and LNGC approach survey areas (Figure 3 in the application) are located in the marine waters of Cook Inlet near the eastern shoreline of what is defined as the northern region of Lower Cook Inlet, south of the Forelands and adjacent to Nikiski on the Kenai Peninsula. The marine facilities survey area encompasses 109 km
In the LNGC approach survey area, the chirp and boomer sub-bottom profilers will be operated simultaneously. The marine facilities survey area will be surveyed twice: Once with the chirp and boomer sub-bottom profilers operated simultaneously, and once with the air gun and chirp subbottom profiler operated simultaneously. The pipeline survey area will also be surveyed twice: Once with the chirp and boomer sub-bottom profilers operated simultaneously and once with the boomer sub-bottom profiler and air gun operated simultaneously. Use of an air gun from a stationary platform will be conducted only in the marine facilities survey area. Vibracoring may be conducted throughout all of the survey areas.
The details of this activity are broken down into two categories for further description and analysis: Geophysical surveys and geotechnical surveys.
The types of acoustical geophysical equipment planned for use in the Cook Inlet 2016 G&G Program are indicated in Table 1 in the application. The equipment includes: Sub-bottom profilers (chirp and boomer), 0.983 L (60 in
Downhole geophysics is included in the table as a sound source, but is not considered further in this assessment as the energy source will not generate significant sound energy within the water column since the equipment will be located downhole within the geotechnical boreholes. The transmitter (source) and receiver are both housed within the same probe or tool that is lowered into the hole on a wireline. The suspension log transmitter is an electromechanical device. It consists of a metallic barrel (the hammer) disposed horizontally in the tool and actuated by an electromagnet (solenoid) to hit the inside of tool body (the plate). The fundamental H1 mode is at about 4.5 KHz, and H2 is at 9 KHz. An extra resonance (unknown) mode is also present at about 15 Khz. An analysis performed to estimate the expected sound level of the proposed borehole logging equipment scaled the sound produced by a steel pile driven by a hammer (given that both are cylindrical noise sources and produce impulsive sounds) and concluded that the sound level produced at 25 m by the borehole logging equipment would be less than 142 dB. This is not considering the confining effect of the borehole which would lower the sound level even further (I&R, 2015).
The other types of geophysical equipment proposed for the 2015 program will generate impulsive sound in the water column and are described below Information on the acoustic characteristics of geophysical and geotechnical sound sources is also summarized in Table 2 in the application, followed by a corresponding description of each piece of equipment to be used.
The chirp sub-bottom profiler planned for use in this program is a precisely controlled “chirp” system that emits high-energy sounds with a resolution of one millisecond (ms) and is used to penetrate and profile the shallow sediments near the sea floor. At operating frequencies of 2 to 16 kHz (Table 2 in application), this system will be operating at the lower end of the hearing range of beluga whales and well below the most sensitive hearing range of beluga whales (45-80 kHz, Castellote
A boomer sub-bottom profiling system with a penetration depth of up to 600 ms and resolution of 2 to 10 ms will be used to penetrate and profile the Cook Inlet sediments to an intermediate depth. The system will be towed behind the vessel. With a sound energy source level of about 205 dB re 1 μPa-m (rms) at frequencies of 0.5 to 6 kHz (Table 2 in application), most of the sound energy generated by the boomer will be at frequencies that are well below peak hearing sensitivities of beluga whales (45-80 kHz; Castellote
A 0.983 L (60 in
Vibracoring is conducted to obtain cores of the seafloor sediment from the surface down to a depth of about 6.1 m (20 ft). The cores are later analyzed in the laboratory for moisture, organic and carbonate content, shear strength, and grain size. Vibracore samplers consist of a 10-cm (4.0-in) diameter core barrel and a vibratory driving mechanism mounted on a four-legged frame, which is lowered to the seafloor. The electric motor driving mechanism oscillates the core barrel into the sediment where a core sample is then extracted. The duration of the operation varies with substrate type, but generally the sound source (driving mechanism) is operable for only the one or two minutes it takes to complete the 6.1-m (20-ft) bore and the entire setup process often takes less than one hour.
Chorney
Because of the very brief duration within a day (each event lasting 1 or 2-minute periods) of this continuous, non-impulsive sound, combined with the small number of days the source will be used overall, NMFS does not believe that the vibracore operations will result in the take of marine mammals. However, because the applicant requested take from this source and included a quantitative analysis in their application, that analysis will be included here for reference and opportunity for public comment.
Vessels used in the program will be approximately 15-42 m (50-140 ft) in length and 4.5-15 m (15-50 ft) in width (beam) with approximately 750-1500 horsepower. When used in combination, the air gun and chirp and boomer sub-bottom profilers will typically be deployed from the same survey vessel. Vibracoring may be conducted from a separate survey vessel. The air gun may also be used from a stationary platform or barge.
Marine mammals that regularly inhabit upper Cook Inlet and Nikiski activity areas are the beluga whale (
The Cook Inlet beluga whale Distinct Population Segment (DPS) is a small geographically isolated population that is separated from other beluga populations by the Alaska Peninsula. The population is genetically (mtDNA) distinct from other Alaska populations, suggesting that the Peninsula is an effective barrier to genetic exchange (O'Corry-Crowe
The Cook Inlet beluga DPS was originally estimated at 1,300 whales in 1979 (Calkins 1989) and has been the focus of management concerns since experiencing a dramatic decline in the 1990s. Between 1994 and 1998 the stock declined 47%, which has been attributed to overharvesting by subsistence hunting. During that period, subsistence hunting was estimated to have annually removed 10-15% of the population. Only five belugas have been harvested since 1999, yet the population has continued to decline (Allen and Angliss 2014), with the most recent estimate at only 312 animals (Allen and Angliss 2014). The NMFS listed the population as “depleted” in 2000 as a consequence of the decline, and as “endangered” under the ESA in 2008 when the population failed to recover following a moratorium on subsistence harvest. In April 2011, the NMFS designated critical habitat for the Cook Inlet beluga whale under the ESA (Figure 2 in the application).
Prior to the decline, this DPS was believed to range throughout Cook Inlet and occasionally into Prince William Sound and Yakutat (Nemeth
Goetz
Two different stocks of killer whales inhabit the Cook Inlet region of Alaska: The Alaska Resident Stock and the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea Transient Stock (Allen and Angliss 2014). The Alaska Resident killer whale stock is estimated at 2,347 animals and occurs from Southeast Alaska to the Bering Sea (Allen and Angliss 2014). Resident killer whales feed exclusively on fish and are genetically distinct from transient whales (Saulitis
The transient killer whales feed primarily on marine mammals (Saulitis
Killer whales are occasionally observed in lower Cook Inlet, especially near Homer and Port Graham (Shelden
Harbor porpoise are small (approximately 1.2 m [4 ft] in length), relatively inconspicuous toothed whales. The Gulf of Alaska Stock is distributed from Cape Suckling to Unimak Pass and was most recently estimated at 31,046 animals (Allen and Angliss 2014). They are found primarily in coastal waters less than 100 m (328 ft) deep (Hobbs and Waite 2010) where they feed on Pacific herring (
Although they have been frequently observed during aerial surveys in Cook Inlet, most sightings of harbor porpoise are of single animals, and are concentrated at Chinitna and Tuxedni bays on the west side of lower Cook Inlet (Rugh
At over 150,000 animals state-wide (Allen and Angliss 2014), harbor seals are one of the more common marine mammal species in Alaskan waters. They are most commonly seen hauled out at tidal flats and rocky areas. Harbor seals feed largely on schooling fish such as Alaska Pollock, Pacific cod, salmon, Pacific herring, eulachon, and squid. Although harbor seals may make seasonal movements in response to prey, they are resident to Alaska and do not migrate.
The Cook Inlet/Shelikof Stock, ranging from approximately Anchorage down along the south side of the Alaska Peninsula to Unimak Pass, has been recently estimated at a stable 22,900 (Allen and Angliss 2014). Large numbers concentrate at the river mouths and embayments of lower Cook Inlet,
Although there is considerable distributional overlap in the humpback whale stocks that use Alaska, the whales seasonally found in lower Cook Inlet are probably of the Central North Pacific stock. Listed as endangered under the ESA, this stock has recently been estimated at 7,469, with the portion of the stock that feeds in the Gulf of Alaska estimated at 2,845 animals (Allen and Angliss 2014). The Central North Pacific stock winters in Hawaii and summers from British Columbia to the Aleutian Islands (Calambokidis
Humpback use of Cook Inlet is largely confined to lower Cook Inlet. They have been regularly seen near Kachemak Bay during the summer months (Rugh
Each spring, the Eastern North Pacific stock of gray whale migrates 8,000 kilometers (5,000 miles) northward from breeding lagoons in Baja California to feeding grounds in the Bering and Chukchi seas, reversing their travel again in the fall (Rice and Wolman 1971). Their migration route is for the most part coastal until they reach the feeding grounds. A small portion of whales do not annually complete the full circuit, as small numbers can be found in the summer feeding along the Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and Alaskan coasts (Rice
Human exploitation reduced this stock to an estimated “few thousand” animals (Jones and Schwartz 2002). However, by the late 1980s, the stock was appearing to reach carrying capacity and estimated to be at 26,600 animals (Jones and Schwartz 2002). By 2002, that stock had been reduced to about 16,000 animals, especially following unusually high mortality events in 1999 and 2000 (Allen and Angliss 2014). The stock has continued to grow since then and is currently estimated at 19,126 animals with a minimum estimate of 18,017 (Carretta
Most gray whales migrate past the mouth of Cook Inlet to and from northern feeding grounds. However, small numbers of summering gray whales have been noted by fisherman near Kachemak Bay and north of Anchor Point. Further, summering gray whales were seen offshore of Cape Starichkof by marine mammal observers monitoring Buccaneer's Cosmopolitan drilling program in 2013 (Owl Ridge 2014). Regardless, gray whales are not expected to be encountered in upper Cook Inlet, where the activity is concentrated, north of Kachemak Bay. Therefore, it is unlikely that they will be encountered during this activity in close enough proximity to cause Level B harassment and are not considered further in this final Authorization notice.
Minke whales are the smallest of the rorqual group of baleen whales reaching lengths of up to 35 feet. They are also the most common of the baleen whales, although there are no population estimates for the North Pacific, although estimates have been made for some portions of Alaska. Zerbini
During Cook Inlet-wide aerial surveys conducted from 1993 to 2004, minke whales were encountered only twice (1998, 1999), both times off Anchor Point 16 miles northwest of Homer. Recently, several minke whales were recorded off Cape Starichkof in early summer 2013 during exploratory drilling conducted there (Owl Ridge 2014). There are no records north of Cape Starichkof, and this species is unlikely to be seen in upper Cook Inlet. There is little chance of encountering a minke whale during these activities. Therefore, no take of minke whales is authorized.
Dall's porpoise are widely distributed throughout the North Pacific Ocean including Alaska, although they are not found in upper Cook Inlet and the shallower waters of the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas (Allen and Angliss 2014). Compared to harbor porpoise, Dall's porpoise prefer the deep offshore and shelf slope waters. The Alaskan population has been estimated at 83,400 animals (Allen and Angliss 2014), making it one of the more common cetaceans in the state. Dall's porpoise have been observed in lower Cook Inlet, including Kachemak Bay and near Anchor Point (Owl Ridge 2014), but sightings there are rare. The concentration of sightings of Dall's porpoise in a southerly part of the Inlet suggest it is unlikely they will be encountered during EMALL's activities. Therefore, no take of Dall's porpoise is authorized.
The Western Stock of the Steller sea lion is defined as all populations west of longitude 144°W to the western end of the Aleutian Islands. The most recent estimate for this stock is 45,649 animals (Allen and Angliss 2014), considerably less than that estimated 140,000 animals in the 1950s (Merrick
Steller sea lions inhabit lower Cook Inlet, especially in the vicinity of Shaw Island and Elizabeth Island (Nagahut Rocks) haulout sites (Rugh
The upper reaches of Cook Inlet may not provide adequate foraging conditions for sea lions for establishing a major haul out presence. Steller sea lions feed largely on walleye pollock, salmon and arrowtooth flounder during the summer, and walleye pollock and Pacific cod during the winter (Sinclair and Zeppelin 2002), none of which, except for salmon, are found in abundance in upper Cook Inlet (Nemeth
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components (seismic airgun operations, sub-bottom profiler chirper and boomer, vibracore) of the specified activity may impact marine mammals. The “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that NMFS expects to be taken by this activity. The “Negligible Impact Analysis” section will include the analysis of how this specific proposed activity would impact marine mammals and will consider the content of this section, the “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section, the “Mitigation” section, and the “Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat” section to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of this activity on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and from that on the affected marine mammal populations or stocks.
NMFS intends to provide a background of potential effects of EMALL's activities in this section. Operating active acoustic sources have the potential for adverse effects on marine mammals. The majority of anticipated impacts would be from the use of active acoustic sources.
When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (Richardson
Southall
The functional groups and the associated frequencies are:
• Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): Functional hearing estimates occur between approximately 7 Hertz (Hz) and 25 kHz (extended from 22 kHz based on data indicating that some mysticetes can hear above 22 kHz; Au
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and bottlenose whales): Functional hearing estimates occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
• High-frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises, six species of river dolphins,
• Pinnipeds in Water: Phocid (true seals) functional hearing estimates occur between approximately 75 Hz and 100 kHz (Hemila
As mentioned previously in this document, Cook Inlet beluga whales, harbor porpoise, killer whales, and harbor seals (3 odontocetes and 1 phocid) would likely occur in the action area. Table 2 presents the classification of these species into their respective functional hearing group. NMFS consider a species' functional hearing group when analyzing the effects of exposure to sound on marine mammals.
The effects of sounds from airgun operations might include one or more of the following: Tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral disturbance, temporary or permanent impairment, or non-auditory physical or physiological effects (Richardson
Studies on marine mammals' tolerance to sound in the natural environment are relatively rare. Richardson
Numerous studies have shown that pulsed sounds from airguns are often readily detectable in the water at distances of many kilometers. Several studies have also shown that marine mammals at distances of more than a few kilometers from operating seismic vessels often show no apparent response. That is often true even in cases when the pulsed sounds must be readily audible to the animals based on measured received levels and the
Weir (2008) observed marine mammal responses to seismic pulses from a 24 airgun array firing a total volume of either 5,085 in
Bain and Williams (2006) examined the effects of a large airgun array (maximum total discharge volume of 1,100 in
Pirotta
Marine mammals use acoustic signals for a variety of purposes, which differ among species, but include communication between individuals, navigation, foraging, reproduction, avoiding predators, and learning about their environment (Erbe and Farmer, 2000; Tyack, 2000).
The term masking refers to the inability of an animal to recognize the occurrence of an acoustic stimulus because of interference of another acoustic stimulus (Clark
Introduced underwater sound may, through masking, reduce the effective communication distance of a marine mammal species if the frequency of the source is close to that used as a signal by the marine mammal, and if the anthropogenic sound is present for a significant fraction of the time (Richardson
Marine mammals are thought to be able to compensate for masking by adjusting their acoustic behavior through shifting call frequencies, increasing call volume, and increasing vocalization rates. For example in one study, blue whales increased call rates when exposed to noise from seismic surveys in the St. Lawrence Estuary (Di Iorio and Clark, 2010). Other studies reported that some North Atlantic right whales exposed to high shipping noise increased call frequency (Parks
Studies have shown that some baleen and toothed whales continue calling in the presence of seismic pulses, and some researchers have heard these calls between the seismic pulses (
In contrast, Clark and Gagnon (2006) reported that fin whales in the northeast Pacific Ocean went silent for an extended period starting soon after the onset of a seismic survey in the area. Similarly, NMFS is aware of one report that observed sperm whales ceased calls when exposed to pulses from a very distant seismic ship (Bowles
Risch
Several studies have also reported hearing dolphins and porpoises calling while airguns were operating (
Although some degree of masking is inevitable when high levels of manmade broadband sounds are present in the sea, marine mammals have evolved systems and behavior that function to reduce the impacts of masking. Odontocete conspecifics may readily detect structured signals, such as the echolocation click sequences of small toothed whales even in the presence of strong background noise because their frequency content and temporal features usually differ strongly from those of the background noise (Au and Moore, 1988, 1990). The components of background noise that are similar in frequency to the sound signal in question primarily determine the degree of masking of that signal.
Redundancy and context can also facilitate detection of weak signals. These phenomena may help marine mammals detect weak sounds in the presence of natural or manmade noise. Most masking studies in marine mammals present the test signal and the masking noise from the same direction. The sound localization abilities of marine mammals suggest that, if signal and noise come from different directions, masking would not be as severe as the usual types of masking studies might suggest (Richardson
These data demonstrating adaptations for reduced masking pertain mainly to the very high frequency echolocation signals of toothed whales. There is less information about the existence of corresponding mechanisms at moderate or low frequencies or in other types of marine mammals. For example, Zaitseva
Marine mammals may behaviorally react to sound when exposed to anthropogenic noise. Reactions to sound, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, time of day, and many other factors (Richardson
Types of behavioral reactions can include the following: Changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of areas where noise sources are located; and/or flight responses (
The biological significance of many of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear minor. However, one could expect the consequences of behavioral modification to be biologically significant if the change affects growth, survival, and/or reproduction (
• Drastic changes in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those associated with beaked whale stranding related to exposure to military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
• Permanent habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic environment; and
• Disruption of feeding or social interaction resulting in significant energetic costs, inhibited breeding, or cow-calf separation.
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Richardson
Observers have seen various species of
Ship-based monitoring studies of baleen whales (including blue, fin, sei, minke, and humpback whales) in the northwest Atlantic found that overall, this group had lower sighting rates during seismic versus non-seismic periods (Moulton and Holst, 2010). The authors observed that baleen whales as a group were significantly farther from the vessel during seismic compared with non-seismic periods. Moreover, the authors observed that the whales swam away more often from the operating seismic vessel (Moulton and Holst, 2010). Initial sightings of blue and minke whales were significantly farther from the vessel during seismic operations compared to non-seismic periods and the authors observed the same trend for fin whales (Moulton and Holst, 2010). Also, the authors observed that minke whales most often swam away from the vessel when seismic operations were underway (Moulton and Holst, 2010).
Observers stationed on seismic vessels operating off the United Kingdom from 1997-2000 have provided data on the occurrence and behavior of various toothed whales exposed to seismic pulses (Stone, 2003; Gordon
The beluga may be a species that (at least in certain geographic areas) shows long-distance avoidance of seismic vessels. Aerial surveys during seismic operations in the southeastern Beaufort Sea recorded much lower sighting rates of beluga whales within 10-20 km (6.2-12.4 mi) of an active seismic vessel. These results were consistent with the low number of beluga sightings reported by observers aboard the seismic vessel, suggesting that some belugas might have been avoiding the seismic operations at distances of 10-20 km (6.2-12.4 mi) (Miller
Seismic operators and protected species observers (observers) on seismic vessels regularly see dolphins and other small toothed whales near operating airgun arrays, but in general there is a tendency for most delphinids to show some avoidance of operating seismic vessels (
Captive bottlenose dolphins exhibited changes in behavior when exposed to strong pulsed sounds similar in duration to those typically used in seismic surveys (Finneran
Results for porpoises depend upon the species. The limited available data suggest that harbor porpoises show stronger avoidance of seismic operations than do Dall's porpoises (Stone, 2003; MacLean and Koski, 2005; Bain and Williams, 2006; Stone and Tasker, 2006). Dall's porpoises seem relatively tolerant of airgun operations (MacLean and Koski, 2005; Bain and Williams, 2006), although they too have been observed to avoid large arrays of operating airguns (Calambokidis and Osmek, 1998; Bain and Williams, 2006). This apparent difference in responsiveness of these two porpoise species is consistent with their relative responsiveness to boat traffic and some other acoustic sources (Richardson
Pinnipeds are not likely to show a strong avoidance reaction to the airgun sources proposed for use. Visual monitoring from seismic vessels has shown only slight (if any) avoidance of airguns by pinnipeds and only slight (if any) changes in behavior. Monitoring work in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea during 1996-2001 provided considerable information regarding the behavior of Arctic ice seals exposed to seismic pulses (Harris
Exposure to high intensity sound for a sufficient duration may result in auditory effects such as a noise-induced threshold shift—an increase in the auditory threshold after exposure to noise (Finneran
The following physiological mechanisms are thought to play a role in inducing auditory TS: Effects to sensory hair cells in the inner ear that reduce their sensitivity, modification of the chemical environment within the sensory cells, residual muscular activity in the middle ear, displacement of certain inner ear membranes, increased blood flow, and post-stimulatory reduction in both efferent and sensory neural output (Southall
PTS is considered auditory injury (Southall
Although the published body of scientific literature contains numerous theoretical studies and discussion papers on hearing impairments that can occur with exposure to a loud sound, only a few studies provide empirical information on the levels at which noise-induced loss in hearing sensitivity occurs in non-human animals.
Recent studies by Kujawa and Liberman (2009) and Lin
For marine mammals, published data are limited to the captive bottlenose dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise (Finneran
Lucke
A recent study on bottlenose dolphins (Schlundt,
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
Given the higher level of sound necessary to cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is considerably less likely that PTS would occur during the survey; TTS is also unlikely. Cetaceans generally avoid the immediate area around operating seismic vessels, as do some other marine mammals. Some pinnipeds show avoidance reactions to airguns, but their avoidance reactions are generally not as strong or consistent compared to cetacean reactions.
Classic stress responses begin when an animal's central nervous system perceives a potential threat to its homeostasis. That perception triggers stress responses regardless of whether a stimulus actually threatens the animal; the mere perception of a threat is sufficient to trigger a stress response (Moberg, 2000; Sapolsky
In the case of many stressors, an animal's first and most economical (in terms of biotic costs) response is behavioral avoidance of the potential stressor or avoidance of continued exposure to a stressor. An animal's second line of defense to stressors involves the sympathetic part of the autonomic nervous system and the classical “fight or flight” response, which includes the cardiovascular system, the gastrointestinal system, the exocrine glands, and the adrenal medulla to produce changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal activity that humans commonly associate with stress. These responses have a relatively short duration and may or may not have significant long-term effects on an animal's welfare.
An animal's third line of defense to stressors involves its neuroendocrine or sympathetic nervous systems; the system that has received the most study has been the hypothalmus-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) system (also known as the HPA axis in mammals or the hypothalamus-pituitary-interrenal axis in fish and some reptiles). Unlike stress responses associated with the autonomic nervous system, the pituitary hormones regulate virtually all neuroendocrine functions affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction (Moberg, 1987; Rivier, 1995), altered metabolism (Elasser
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and distress is the biotic cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that the body quickly replenishes after alleviation of the stressor. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose a risk to the animal's welfare. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, it diverts energy resources from other biotic functions, which impair those functions that experience the diversion. For example, when mounting a stress response diverts energy away from growth in young animals, those animals may experience stunted growth (McEwen and Wingfield, 2003). When mounting a stress response diverts energy from a fetus, an animal's reproductive success and fitness will suffer. In these cases, the animals will have entered a pre-pathological or pathological state called “distress” (
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses have also been documented fairly well through controlled experiment; because this physiology exists in every vertebrate that has been studied, it is not surprising that stress responses and their costs have been documented in both laboratory and free-living animals (for examples see, Holberton
For example, Jansen (1998) reported on the relationship between acoustic exposures and physiological responses that are indicative of stress responses in humans (
Hearing is one of the primary senses marine mammals use to gather information about their environment
Resonance effects (Gentry, 2002) and direct noise-induced bubble formations (Crum
In general, there are few data about the potential for strong, anthropogenic underwater sounds to cause non-auditory physical effects in marine mammals. Such effects, if they occur at all, would presumably be limited to short distances and to activities that extend over a prolonged period. The available data do not allow identification of a specific exposure level above which non-auditory effects can be expected (Southall
When a living or dead marine mammal swims or floats onto shore and becomes “beached” or incapable of returning to sea, the event is a “stranding” (Geraci
Marine mammals strand for a variety of reasons, such as infectious agents, biotoxicosis, starvation, fishery interaction, ship strike, unusual oceanographic or weather events, sound exposure, or combinations of these stressors sustained concurrently or in series. However, the cause or causes of most strandings are unknown (Geraci
EMALL would also operate a sub-bottom profiler chirp and boomer from the source vessel during the proposed survey. The chirp's sounds are very short pulses, occurring for one ms, six times per second. Most of the energy in the sound pulses emitted by the profiler is at 2-6 kHz, and the beam is directed downward. The chirp has a maximum source level of 202 dB re: 1 μPa, with a tilt angle of 90 degrees below horizontal and a beam width of 24 degrees. The sub-bottom profiler boomer will shoot approximately every 3.125 m, with shots lasting 1.5 to 2 seconds. Most of the energy in the sound pulses emitted by the boomer is concentrated between 0.5 and 6 kHz, with a source level of 205 dB re: 1 μPa. The tilt of the boomer is 90 degrees below horizontal, but the emission is omnidirectional. Kremser
Marine mammal communications would not likely be masked appreciably by the profiler's signals given the directionality of the signal and the brief period when an individual mammal is likely to be within its beam. Furthermore, despite the fact that the profiler overlaps with hearing ranges of many marine mammal species in the area, the profiler's signals do not overlap with the predominant frequencies in the calls, which would avoid significant masking.
Animals may avoid the area around the survey vessels, thereby reducing exposure. Any disturbance to marine mammals is likely to be in the form of temporary avoidance or alteration of opportunistic foraging behavior near the survey location.
EMALL would conduct vibracoring in a portion of Cook Inlet for a total of 120 vibracoring occurrences. While duration is dependent on sediment type, the driving mechanism, which emits sound at a source level of 187dB re: 1 μPa, will only bore for 1 to 2 minutes. The sound is emitted at a frequency of 10 Hz to 20 kHz.
There are no data on the behavioral response to vibracore activity of marine mammals in Cook Inlet. The closest analog to vibracoring might be exploratory drilling, although there is a notable difference in magnitude between an oil and gas drilling operation and collecting sediment samples with a vibracorer. Thomas
Stress, Stranding, and Mortality Safety zones will be established to prevent acoustical injury to local marine mammals, especially injury that could indirectly lead to mortality. Also, G&G sound is not expected to cause resonate effects to gas-filled spaces or airspaces in marine mammals based on the research of Finneran (2003) on beluga whales showing that the tissue and other body masses dampen any potential effects of resonance on ear cavities, lungs, and intestines. Chronic exposure to sound could lead to physiological stress eventually causing hormonal imbalances (NRC 2005). If survival demands are already high, and/or additional stressors are present, the ability of the animal to cope decreases, leading to pathological conditions or death (NRC 2005). Potential effects may be greatest where sound disturbance can disrupt feeding patterns including displacement from critical feeding grounds. However, all G&G exposure to marine mammals would be of duration measured in minutes.
Specific sound-related processes that lead to strandings and mortality are not well documented, but may include (1) swimming in avoidance of a sound into shallow water; (2) a change in behavior (such as a change in diving behavior) that might contribute to tissue damage, gas bubble formation, hypoxia, cardiac arrhythmia, hypertensive hemorrhage, or other forms of trauma; (3) a physiological change such as a vestibular response leading to a behavioral change or stress-induced hemorrhagic diathesis, leading in turn to tissue damage; and, (4) tissue damage directly from sound exposure, such as through acoustically mediated bubble formation and growth or acoustic resonance of tissues (Wood
The low intensity, low frequency, broadband sound associated with airguns and sub-bottom profilers, combined with the shutdown safety zone mitigation measure for the airgun would prevent physical damage to marine mammals. The vibracoring would also be unlikely to have the capability of causing physical damage to marine mammals because of its low intensity and short duration.
Vessel movement in the vicinity of marine mammals has the potential to result in either a behavioral response or a direct physical interaction. We discuss both scenarios here.
Behavioral responses to stimuli are complex and influenced to varying degrees by a number of factors, such as species, behavioral contexts, geographical regions, source characteristics (moving or stationary, speed, direction, etc.), prior experience of the animal and physical status of the animal. For example, studies have shown that beluga whales' reactions varied when exposed to vessel noise and traffic. In some cases, naive beluga whales exhibited rapid swimming from ice-breaking vessels up to 80 km (49.7 mi) away, and showed changes in surfacing, breathing, diving, and group composition in the Canadian high Arctic where vessel traffic is rare (Finley
In reviewing more than 25 years of whale observation data, Watkins (1986) concluded that whale reactions to vessel traffic were “modified by their previous experience and current activity: Habituation often occurred rapidly, attention to other stimuli or preoccupation with other activities sometimes overcame their interest or wariness of stimuli.” Watkins noticed that over the years of exposure to ships in the Cape Cod area, minke whales changed from frequent positive interest (
Ship strikes of cetaceans can cause major wounds, which may lead to the death of the animal. An animal at the surface could be struck directly by a vessel, a surfacing animal could hit the bottom of a vessel, or a vessel's propeller could injure an animal just below the surface. The severity of injuries typically depends on the size and speed of the vessel (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001; Laist
The most vulnerable marine mammals are those that spend extended periods of time at the surface in order to restore oxygen levels within their tissues after deep dives (
An examination of all known ship strikes from all shipping sources (civilian and military) indicates vessel speed is a principal factor in whether a vessel strike results in death (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001; Laist
Entanglement can occur if wildlife becomes immobilized in survey lines, cables, nets, or other equipment that is moving through the water column. The proposed survey would require towing approximately 150 ft of cables. This size of the array generally carries a lower risk of entanglement for marine mammals. Wildlife, especially slow moving individuals, such as large whales, have a low probability of entanglement due to the low amount of slack in the lines, slow speed of the survey vessel, and onboard monitoring. Pinnipeds and porpoises are the least likely to entangle in equipment, as most
The G&G Program survey areas are within upper Cook Inlet, primarily north of the Forelands although the Marine Terminal survey area is located near Nikiski just south of the East Foreland, which includes habitat for prey species of marine mammals, including fish as well as invertebrates eaten by Cook Inlet beluga whales. This area contains Critical Habitat for Cook Inlet belugas, is near the breeding grounds for the local harbor seal population, and serves as an occasional feeding ground for killer whales and harbor porpoises. Cook Inlet is a large subarctic estuary roughly 299 km (186 mi) in length and averaging 96 km (60 mi) in width. It extends from the city of Anchorage at its northern end and flows into the Gulf of Alaska at its southernmost end. For descriptive purposes, Cook Inlet is separated into unique upper and lower sections, divided at the East and West Forelands, where the opposing peninsulas create a natural waistline in the length of the waterway, measuring approximately 16 km (10 mi) across (Mulherin
Potential effects on beluga habitat would be limited to noise effects on prey; direct impact to benthic habitat from jack-up platform leg placement, and sampling with grabs, coring, and boring; and small discharges of drill cuttings and drilling mud associated with the borings. Portions of the survey areas include waters of Cook Inlet that are <9.1 m (30 ft) in depth and within 8.0 km (5.0 mi) of anadromous streams. Several anadromous streams (Three-mile Creek, Indian Creek, and two unnamed streams) enter the Cook Inlet within the survey areas. Other anadromous streams are located within 8.0 km (5.0 mi) of the survey areas. The survey program will not prevent beluga access to the mouths of these streams and will result in no short-term or long-term loss of intertidal or subtidal waters that are <9.1 m (30 ft) in depth and within 8.0 km (5.0 mi) of anadromous streams. Minor seafloor impacts will occur in these areas from grab samples, PCPTs, vibracores, or geotechnical borings but will have no effect on the area as beluga habitat once the vessel or jack-up platform has left. The survey program will have no effect on this habitat.
Cook Inlet beluga whales may avoid areas ensonified by the geophysical or geotechnical activities that generate sound with frequencies within the beluga hearing range and at levels above threshold values. This includes the chirp sub-bottom profiler with a radius of 631 m, the boomer sub-bottom profiler with a radius of 1 km, the airgun with a radius of 300 m and the vibracore with a radius of 6.2 m. The sub-bottom profilers and the airgun will be operated from a vessel moving at speeds of about 4 kt. The chirp may also be operated concurrently with an airgun. The airgun may also be used as a stationary source in the Marine Facilities area. The operation of a vibracore has a duration of approximately 1-2 minutes. All of these activities will be conducted in relatively open areas of the Cook Inlet within Critical Habitat Area 2. Given the size and openness of the Cook Inlet in the survey areas, and the relatively small area and mobile/temporary nature of the zones of ensonification, the generation of sound by the G&G activities is not expected to result in any restriction of passage of belugas within or between critical habitat areas. The jack-up platform from which the geotechnical borings will be conducted will be attached to the seafloor with legs, and will be in place at a given location for up to 4-5 days, but given its small size (Table 4 in the application) would not result in any obstruction of passage by belugas.
Upper Cook Inlet comprises the area between Point Campbell (Anchorage) down to the Forelands, and is roughly 95 km (59 mi) in length and 24.9 km (15.5 mi) in width (Mulherin
Upper Cook Inlet experiences some of the most extreme tides in the world, demonstrated by a mean tidal range from 4.0 m (13 ft) at the Gulf of Alaska end to 8.8 m (29 ft) near Anchorage (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2013). Tidal currents reach 3.9 kts per second (Mulherin
Because of scouring, mixing, and sediment transport from these currents, the marine invertebrate community is very limited (Pentec 2005). Of the 50 stations sampled by Saupe
Lower Cook Inlet extends from the Forelands southwest to the inlet mouth demarked by an approximate line between Cape Douglas and English Bay. Water circulation in lower Cook Inlet is dominated by the Alaska Coastal Current (ACC) that flows northward along the shores of the Kenai Peninsula until it turns westward and is mixed by the combined influences of freshwater input from upper Cook Inlet, wind, topography, tidal surges, and the coriolis effect (Field and Walker 2003, MMS 1996). Upwelling by the ACC brings nutrient-rich waters to lower Cook Inlet and contributes to a biologically rich and productive ecology (Sambrotto and Lorenzen 1986). Tidal currents average 2-3 kt per second and are rotary in that they do not completely go slack before rotating around into an opposite direction (Gatto 1976, Mulherin
Coarser substrate support a wide variety of invertebrates and fish including Pacific halibut, Dungeness crab, tanner crab, pandalid shrimp, Pacific cod, and rock sole, while the soft-bottom sand and silt communities are dominated by polychaetes, bivalves and other flatfish (Field and Walker
G&G Program activities that could potentially impact marine mammal habitats include sediment sampling (vibracore, boring, grab sampling) on the sea bottom, placement of the jack-up platform spud cans, and acoustical injury of prey resources. However, there are few benthic resources in the survey area that could be impacted by collection of the small samples (Saupe
Acoustical effects to marine mammal prey resources are also limited. Christian
Potential damage to the Cook Inlet benthic community will be limited to the actual surface area of the four spud cans that form the “foot” of each 0.762-m (30-in) diameter leg, the 42 0.1524-m (6-in) diameter borings, and the 55 0.0762-m (3-in) diameter vibracore samplings (plus several grab and PCPT samples). Collectively, these samples would temporarily damage about a hundred square meters of benthic habitat relative to the size (nearly 21,000 km2/8,108 mi2) of Cook Inlet. Overall, sediment sampling and acoustical effects on prey resources will have a negligible effect at most on the marine mammal habitat within the G&G Program survey area. Some prey resources might be temporarily displaced, but no long-term effects are expected.
The Cook Inlet 2015 G&G Program will result in a number of minor discharges to the waters of Cook Inlet. Discharges associated with the geotechnical borings will include: (1) The discharge of drill cuttings and drilling fluids and (2) the discharge of deck drainage (runoff of precipitation and deck wash water) from the geotechnical drilling platform. Other vessels associated with the G&G surveys will discharge wastewaters that are normally associated with the operation of vessels in transit including deck drainage, ballast water, bilge water, non-contact cooling water, and gray water.
The discharges of drill cuttings, drilling fluids, and deck drainage associated with the geotechnical borings will be within limitations authorized by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation under the Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The drill cuttings consist of natural geologic materials of the seafloor sediments brought to the surface via the drill bit/drill stem of the rotary drilling operation, will be relatively minor in volume, and deposit over a very small area of Cook Inlet seafloor. The drilling fluids which are used to lubricate the bit, stabilize the hole, and viscosify the slurry for transport of the solids to the surface will consist of seawater and guar gum. Guar gum is a high-molecular weight polysaccharide (galactose and mannose units) derived from the ground seeds of the plant
Vessel discharges will be authorized under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Vessel General Permit (VGP) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels. Each vessel will have obtained authorization under the VGP and will discharge according to the conditions and limitations mandated by the permit. As required by statute and regulation, the EPA has made a determination that such discharges will not result in any unreasonable degradation of the marine environment, including:
• Significant adverse changes in ecosystem diversity, productivity and stability of the biological community within the area of discharge and surrounding biological communities,
• Threat to human health through direct exposure to pollutants or through consumption of exposed aquatic organisms, or
• Loss of aesthetic, recreational, scientific or economic values which is unreasonable in relation to the benefit derived from the discharge.
In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant).
EMALL has proposed the following mitigation measures. To mitigate potential acoustical impacts to local marine mammals, Protected Species Observers (PSOs) will operate aboard the vessels from which the chirper, boomer, airgun, and vibracorer will be deployed. The PSOs will implement the mitigation measures described in the Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (Appendix A of the application). These mitigations include: (1) Establishing safety zones to ensure marine mammals are not injured by sound pressure levels exceeding Level A injury thresholds; (2) shutting down the airgun when required to avoid harassment of beluga whales approaching the 160-dB disturbance zone; and (3) timing survey activity to avoid concentrations of beluga whales on a seasonal basis.
Before chirper, boomer, airgun, and vibracoring operations begin each day and before restarting operations after a shutdown of 15 minutes or greater, the PSOs will “clear” both the Level A and Level B Zones of Influence (ZOIs—area from the source to the 160dB or 180/190dB isopleths) of marine mammals by intensively surveying these ZOIs prior to activity to confirm that marine mammals are not seen in the applicable area. All three geophysical activities (boomer, chirp, airgun) will be shut down in mid-operation at the approach
EMALL will hire qualified and NMFS-approved PSOs. These PSOs will be stationed aboard the geophysical survey source or support vessels during sub-bottom profiling, air gun, and vibracoring operations. A single senior PSO will be assigned to oversee all Marine Mammal Mitigation and Monitoring Program mandates and function as the on-site person-in-chargeimplementing the 4MP.
Generally, two PSOs will work on a rotational basis during daylight hours with shifts of 4 to 6 hours, and one PSO on duty on each source vessel at all times. Work days for an individual PSO will not exceed 12 hours in duration. Sufficient numbers of PSOs will be available and provided to meet requirements.
Roles and responsibilities of all PSOs include the following:
• Accurately observe and record sensitive marine mammal species;
• Follow monitoring and data collection procedures; and
• Ensure mitigation measures are followed.
PSOs will be stationed at the best available vantage point on the source vessels. PSOs will scan systematically with the unaided eye and 7x50 reticle binoculars. As necessary, new PSOs will be paired with experienced PSOs to ensure that the quality of marine mammal observations and data recording are consistent.
All field data collected will be entered by the end of the day into a custom database using a notebook computer. Weather data relative to viewing conditions will be collected hourly, on rotation, and when sightings occur and include the following:
• Sea state;
• Wind speed and direction;
• Sun position; and
• Percent glare.
The following data will be collected for all marine mammal sightings:
• Bearing and distance to the sighting;
• Species identification;
• Behavior at the time of sighting (
• Direction and speed relative to vessel;
• Reaction to activities—changes in behavior (
• Group size;
• Orientation when sighted (
• Closest point of approach;
• Sighting cue (
• Physical description of features that were observed or determined not to be present in the case of unknown or unidentified animals;
• Time of sighting;
• Location, speed, and activity of the source and mitigation vessels, sea state, ice cover, visibility, and sun glare; and positions of other vessel(s) in the vicinity, and
• Mitigation measure taken—if any.
All observations and shut downs will be recorded in a standardized format and data entered into a custom database using a notebook computer. Accuracy of all data will be verified daily by the person in charge (PIC) or designated PSO by a manual verification. These procedures will reduce errors, allow the preparation of short-term data summaries, and facilitate transfer of the data to statistical, graphical, or other programs for further processing and archiving. PSOs will conduct monitoring during daylight periods (weather permitting) during G&G activities, and during most daylight periods when G&G activities are temporarily suspended.
If any marine mammal is seen approaching the Level A injury zone for the air gun, chirp, or boomer, these sources will be shut down. If ESA-listed marine mammals (
A full ramp-up after a shutdown will not begin until there has been a minimum of 30 minutes of observation of the applicable exclusion zone by PSOs to assure that no marine mammals are present. The entire exclusion zone must be visible during the 30-minute lead-in to a full ramp up. If the entire exclusion zone is not visible, then ramp-up from a cold start cannot begin. If a marine mammal(s) is sighted within the injury exclusion zone during the 30-minute watch prior to ramp-up, ramp-up will be delayed until the marine mammal(s) is sighted outside of the zone or the animal(s) is not sighted for at least 15-30 minutes: 15 Minutes for small odontocetes and pinnipeds (
If a marine mammal is detected outside the Level A injury exclusion zone and, based on its position and the relative motion, is likely to enter that zone, the vessel's speed and/or direct course may, when practical and safe, be changed to also minimize the effect on the survey program. The marine mammal activities and movements relative to the sound source and support vessels will be closely monitored to ensure that the marine mammal does not approach within the applicable exclusion radius. If the mammal appears likely to enter the exclusion radius, further mitigative actions will be taken,
The following additional protective measures for beluga whales and groups of five or more killer whales and harbor porpoises are required. Specifically, a 160-dB vessel monitoring zone would be established and monitored in Cook Inlet during all seismic surveys. If a beluga whale or groups of five or more killer whales and/or harbor porpoises are visually sighted approaching or within the 160-dB disturbance zone, survey activity would not commence until the animals are no longer present within the 160-dB disturbance zone. Whenever Cook Inlet beluga whales or groups of five or more killer whales and/or harbor porpoises are detected approaching or within the 160-dB disturbance zone, the boomer, chirp, and airgun may be powered down
NMFS requires that EMALL will not operate the chirp, boomer, vibracore, or airgun within 10 miles (16 km) of the mean higher high water (MHHW) line of the Susitna Delta (Beluga River to the Little Susitna River) between April 15 and October 15. The purpose of this mitigation measure is to protect beluga whales in the designated critical habitat in this area that is important for beluga whale feeding and calving during the spring and fall months. The range of the setback required by NMFS was designated to protect this important habitat area and also to create an effective buffer where sound does not encroach on this habitat. This seasonal exclusion will be in effect from April 15th to October 15th annually. Activities can occur within this area from October 16th-April 14th.
To allow the use of vibracoring in low-light and nighttime conditions, NMFS would require use of passive acoustic monitoring to acoustically “clear” the relevant 120 or 160-dB disturbance zone. A specifically trained Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) operator will deploy the hydrophone and listen for vocalizations of marine mammals. If no vocalizations are detected in 30 minutes of listening, the area can be considered clear and operations can ramp up.
NMFS has carefully evaluated EMALL's mitigation measures and considered additional measures in the context of ensuring that we prescribe the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:
• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;
• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; 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 science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed here:
• Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
• A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to sub-bottom profiler or airgun operations that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
• A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to sub-bottom profiler or airgun operations that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
• A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to airgun operations that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
• 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.
• 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 the evaluation of EMALL's measures, as well as other measures required by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the 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. Measures to ensure availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses are discussed later in this document (see “Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for Taking for Subsistence Uses” section).
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.
EMALL submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA application. It can be found in Appendix A. The plan may be modified or supplemented based on comments or new information received from the public during the public comment period.
Weekly reports will be submitted to NMFS no later than the close of business (Alaska Time) each Thursday during the weeks when in-water G&G activities take place. The reports will cover information collected from Wednesday of the previous week through Tuesday of the current week. The field reports will summarize
Monthly reports will be submitted to NMFS for all months during which in-water G&G activities take place. The reports will be submitted to NMFS no later than five business days after the end of the month. The monthly report will contain and summarize the following information:
• Dates, times, locations, heading, speed, weather, sea conditions (including Beaufort Sea state and wind force), and associated activities during the G&G Program and marine mammal sightings.
• Species, number, location, distance from the vessel, and behavior of any sighted marine mammals, as well as associated G&G activity (number of shut downs), observed throughout all monitoring activities.
• An estimate of the number (by species) of: (i) Pinnipeds that have been exposed to the authorized geophysical or geotechnical activity (based on visual observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 µPa (rms) and/or 190 dB re 1 µPa (rms) with a discussion of any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited; and (ii) cetaceans that have been exposed to the geophysical activity (based on visual observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 µPa (rms) and/or 180 dB re 1 µPa (rms) with a discussion of any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited.
• An estimate of the number (by species) of pinnipeds and cetaceans that have been exposed to the geotechnical activity (based on visual observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 120 dB re 1 µPa (rms) with a discussion of any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited.
• A description of the implementation and effectiveness of the: (i) Terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion's Incidental Take Statement; and (ii) mitigation measures of the IHA. For the Biological Opinion, the report shall confirm the implementation of each Term and Condition, as well as any conservation recommendations, and describe their effectiveness, for minimizing the adverse effects of the action on ESA-listed marine mammals.
A report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the project or at least 60 days before the request for another IHA for the next open water season to enable NMFS to incorporate observation data into the next Authorization. The report will summarize all activities and monitoring results (
• Summaries of monitoring effort (
• Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing detectability of marine mammals (
• Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine mammal sightings, including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender categories (if determinable), group sizes, and ice cover.
• Analyses of the effects of survey operations.
• Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and without G&G survey activities (and other variables that could affect detectability), such as: (i) Initial sighting distances versus survey activity state; (ii) closest point of approach versus survey activity state; (iii) observed behaviors and types of movements versus survey activity state; (iv) numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus survey activity state; (v) distribution around the source vessels versus survey activity state; and (vi) estimates of Level B harassment based on presence in the 120 or 160 dB harassment zone.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity leads to an injury of a marine mammal (Level A harassment) 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 event. EMALL would work with NMFS to minimize reoccurrence of such an event in the future. The G&G Program would not resume activities until formally notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that the G&G Program discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
In the event that the G&G Program discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
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].
Acoustic stimuli (
NMFS' practice is to apply the 120 or 160 dB re: 1 μPa received level threshold (whichever is appropriate) for underwater impulse sound levels to determine whether take by Level B harassment is likely to occur.
All four types of survey equipment addressed in the application will be operated from the geophysical source vessels that will either be moving steadily across the ocean surface (chirper, boomer, airgun), or from station to station (airgun, vibracoring). The numbers of marine mammals that might be exposed to sound pressure levels exceeding NMFS Level B harassment threshold levels due to G&G surveys, without mitigation, were determined by multiplying the average raw density for each species by the daily ensonified area, and then multiplying that figure by the number of days each sound source is estimated to be in use. The chirp is always used simultaneously with either the boomer or the airgun and therefore was removed from calculation because they will be operating concurrently, using the daily ensonified area of the boomer or airgun, as it is a slightly larger isopleth. The exposure estimates for each activity were then summed to provide total exposures for the duration of the project. The exposure estimates for the activity are detailed below. Although NMFS believes that take of marine mammals from vibracore is extremely unlikely, it has been included in this authorization out of an abundance of caution and at the request of the applicant.
The ZOI is the area ensonified by a particular sound source greater than threshold levels (120 dB for continuous and 160 dB for impulsive). The radius of the ZOI for airguns was determined by applying the source sound pressure levels described in Table 6 of the application to Collins
Density estimates were derived for harbor porpoises, killer whales, and harbor seals from NMFS 2002-2012 Cook Inlet survey data as described below in Section 6.1.2.1 and shown in Table 8. The beluga whale densities were extracted from Goetz et al. (2012) as described in Section 6.1.2.2 of the application.
Density estimates were calculated for all marine mammals (except beluga whales) by using aerial survey data collected by NMFS in Cook Inlet between 2002 and 2012 (Rugh
These raw densities were not corrected for animals missed during the aerial surveys as no accurate correction factors are currently available for these species; however, observer error may be limited as the NMFS surveyors often circled marine mammal groups to get an accurate count of group size. The harbor seal densities are probably biased upwards given that a large number of the animals recorded were of large groups hauled out at river mouths, and do not represent the distribution in the waters where the G&G activity will actually occur. However, these data are the most comprehensive available for Cook Inlet harbor seals and therefore constitute the best available science.
Goetz
The Cook Inlet 2015 G&G Program is expected to require approximately 16 weeks (102 days) to complete. Table 7 below outlines which technologies will be used and for how many days.
In the 46 days of activity in the pipeline area, the chirp and boomer will operate concurrently for 30 days while the chirp and airgun will operate concurrently for 16 days. In the 42 days of activity in the Marine Facilities area, the chirp and boom will operate concurrently for 28 days and the chirp will operate concurrently with the airgun for 14 days. In the 14 days of operation in the LNGC approach area, the chirp and boom will operate concurrently for all days.
The numbers of marine mammals that might be exposed to sound pressure levels exceeding NMFS Level B harassment threshold levels due to G&G surveys, without mitigation, were determined by multiplying the average raw density for each species by the daily ensonified area, then multiplying by the number of days each sound source is estimated to be in use. While this method produces a good estimate of the number of instances of take, it is likely an overestimate of the number of individual marine mammals taken because it assumes that entirely new individuals are taken on subsequent days and that no animals are taken more than once. The chirp and boomer activities were combined to calculate exposure from days of activities in the Upper Cook Inlet area and the Lower Cook Inlet area because they will be operating concurrently. The exposure estimates for each activity were then summed to provide total exposures for
NMFS recognizes that in addition to what was mentioned above, there are other factors that contribute to an overestimate of exposures
NMFS calculated the exposures from vibracore and found they would increase take by 580 percent and recognizes that the take calculated for vibracore is high when compared to take calculated from other portions of the activity. It is unlikely that many instances of take will occur from an activity with a source level of 187.4 dB for a duration of 60-90 seconds. This is largely attributed to the size of the isopleth (20 km) due to the use of geometrical spreading to model the ZOI. The vibracore produces noise of a much shorter duration than those sources used to determine the 120dB threshold,. NMFS believes implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures mentioned in the above section, in combination with the short duration of the sound, will not result in take by Level B harassment.
The possibility of Level A exposure was analyzed, however the distances to 180 dB/190 dB isopleths are incredibly small, ranging from 3 to 47 meters. The number of exposures, without accounting for mitigation or likely avoidance of louder sounds, is small for these zones, and with mitigation and the likelihood of detecting marine mammals within this small area combined with the likelihood of avoidance, it is likely these takes can be avoided. The only technology that would not shutdown is the vibracore, which has a distance to Level A isopleth (180 dB) of 3 meters. Therefore, authorization of Level A take is not necessary.
NMFS recognizes that the calculations of take by Level B harassment of beluga whales for the entire activity is higher than NMFS would issue for an endangered population that is not recovering despite the moratorium on subsistence hunting. Given that the factors contributing to the lack of recovery remain unknown, NMFS proposes to limit the number of Level B takes of Cook Inlet beluga to 34, or 10 percent of the population. This cap can be implemented in a method similar to that used in SAE's 2015 IHA or the Apache proposed rulemaking.
In order to estimate when 34 individuals is reached, EMALL will use a formula based on the total potential area of each survey project zone (including the 160 dB buffer) and the average density of beluga whales for each zone. Daily take is calculated as the product of the daily ensonified area times the beluga density in that area, as extracted from the Goetz et al 2012 model. Then daily take is summed across all the days of the survey until the survey approaches 34 takes.
EMALL will limit surveying in the seismic survey area as not to exceed a maximum of 34 beluga takes during the open water season. In order to ensure that EMALL does not exceed 34 beluga whale takes, the following equation is being used:
This formula also allows EMALL to have flexibility to prioritize survey locations in response to local weather, ice, and operational constraints. EMALL may choose to survey portions of a zone or a zone in its entirety, and the analysis in this Authorization takes this into account.
Operations are required to cease once EMALL has conducted seismic data acquisition in an area where multiplying the applicable density by the total ensonified area out to the 160-dB isopleth equaled 34 beluga whales, using the equation provided above. If 34 belugas are visually observed within the ZOI before the calculation reaches 34 belugas, EMALL is also required to cease survey activity.
NMFS proposes to authorize the following takes by Level B harassment:
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). The lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, except where otherwise identified, the discussion of our analyses applies to all the species listed in Table 8, given that the anticipated effects of this project on marine mammals are expected to be relatively similar in nature. Where there is information about specific impacts to, or about the size, status, or structure of, any species or stock that would lead to a different analysis for this activity, species-specific factors are identified and analyzed.
In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS considers:
• The number of anticipated injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities;
• The number, nature, and intensity, and duration of Level B harassment; and
• The context in which the takes occur (
• The status of stock or species of marine mammals (
• Impacts on habitat affecting rates of recruitment/survival; and
• The effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures to reduce the number or severity of incidental take.
As discussed in the Potential Effects section, temporary or permanent threshold shift, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, ship strike, entanglement are not expected to occur. Given the required mitigation and related monitoring, no injuries or mortalities are anticipated to occur to any species as a result of EMALL's proposed survey in Cook Inlet, and none are authorized. Animals in the area are not expected to incur hearing impairment (
The addition of five vessels, and noise due to vessel operations associated with the survey, would not be outside the present experience of marine mammals in Cook Inlet, although levels may increase locally. Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat were discussed previously in this document (see the “Anticipated Effects on Habitat” section). Although some disturbance is possible to food sources of marine mammals, the impacts are anticipated to be minor enough as to not affect annual rates of recruitment or survival of marine mammals in the area. Based on the size of Cook Inlet where feeding by marine mammals occurs versus the localized area of the marine survey activities, any missed feeding opportunities in the direct project area would be minor based on the fact that other feeding areas exist elsewhere.
Taking into account the mitigation measures that are planned, effects on cetaceans are generally expected to be restricted to avoidance of a limited area around the survey operation and short-term changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of “Level B harassment.” Shut-downs are required for belugas and groups of killer whales or harbor porpoises when they approach the 160dB disturbance zone, to further reduce potential impacts to these populations. Visual observation by trained PSOs is also implemented to reduce the impact of the proposed activity by informing operators of marine mammals approaching the relevant disturbance or injury zones. Animals are not expected to permanently abandon any area that is surveyed, and any behaviors that are interrupted during the activity are expected to resume once the activity ceases. Only a small portion of marine mammal habitat will be affected at any time, and other areas within Cook Inlet will be available for necessary biological functions.
Odontocete (including Cook Inlet beluga whales, killer whales, and harbor porpoises) reactions to seismic energy pulses are usually assumed to be limited to shorter distances from the airgun(s) than are those of mysticetes, in part because odontocete low-frequency hearing is assumed to be less sensitive than that of mysticetes. This information supports the idea that the numerated takes for odonotocetes are likely on the lower end of severity in the terms of responses that rise to the level of a take.
Cook Inlet beluga whales are listed as endangered under the ESA. This stock
Belugas in the Canadian Beaufort Sea in summer appear to be fairly responsive to seismic energy, with few being sighted within 10-20 km (6-12 mi) of seismic vessels during aerial surveys (Miller
Given the large number of vessels in Cook Inlet and the apparent habituation to vessels by Cook Inlet beluga whales and the other marine mammals that may occur in the area, vessel activity from the two source vessels, tug and jack-up rig and associated vessel noise is not expected to have effects that could cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations, given that vessels will operate for a maximum of 102 days.
In addition, NMFS has seasonally restricted survey operations in the area known to be important for beluga whale feeding, calving, or nursing. The primary location for these biological life functions occurs in the Susitna Delta region of upper Cook Inlet. NMFS required EMALL to implement a 16 km (10 mi) seasonal exclusion from survey operations in this region from April 15-October 15. The highest concentrations of belugas are typically found in this area from early May through September each year. NMFS has incorporated a 2-week buffer on each end of this seasonal use timeframe to account for any anomalies in distribution and marine mammal usage.
The authorization of take by Level B harassment of 13 killer whales represents only 3.77 percent of the population. Killer whales are not encountered as frequently in Cook Inlet as some of the other species in this analysis, however when sighted they are usually in groups. The addition of a mitigation measure to shutdown if a group of 5 or more killer whales is seen approaching the 160 dB zone is intended to minimize any impact to an aggregation of killer whales if encountered. The killer whales in the survey area are also thought to be transient killer whales and therefore rely on the habitat in the EMALL survey area less than other resident species.
The authorization of take by Level B harassment for 54 harbor porpoises represents only 0.17 percent of the population. Harbor porpoises are among the most sensitive marine mammal species with regard to behavioral response and anthropogenic noise. They are known to exhibit behavioral responses to operation of seismic airguns, pingers, and other technologies at low thresholds. However, they are abundant in Cook Inlet and therefore the authorized take is unlikely to affect recruitment or status of the population in any way. In addition, mitigation measures include shutdowns for groups of more than 5 harbor porpoises that will minimize the amount of take to the local harbor porpoise population. This mitigation as well as the short duration and low source levels of the proposed activity will reduce the impact to the harbor porpoises found in Cook Inlet.
The authorization of take by Level B harassment for 4,643 harbor seals represents 20.27 percent of a stable population. Observations during other anthropogenic activities in Cook Inlet have reported large congregations of harbor seals hauling out in upper Cook Inlet. However, mitigation measures, such as vessel speed, course alteration, and visual monitoring, and time-area restrictions will be implemented to help reduce impacts to the animals. Additionally, this activity does not encompass a large number of known harbor seal haulouts, particularly as this activity proposes operations traversing across the Inlet, as opposed to entirely nearshore activities. While some harbor seals will likely be exposed, the required mitigation along with their smaller aggregations in water than on shore should minimize impacts to the harbor seal population. Additionally, the short duration of the survey, and the use of visual observers to inform shutdowns and ramp up delays should further reduce the severity of behavioral reactions to Cook Inlet harbor seals. Therefore, the exposure of pinnipeds to sounds produced by this phase of EMALL's proposed survey is not anticipated to have an effect on annual rates of recruitment or survival on those species or stocks.
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 required monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total annual marine mammal take from EMALL's proposed survey will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks (see Table 8).
Although NMFS believes it is unlikely the operation of the vibracore would result in the take of marine mammals and does not propose to authorize take by vibracore in the
The requested takes authorized annually represent 10 percent of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population of approximately 340 animals (Shelden
In addition to the quantitative methods used to estimate take, NMFS also considered qualitative factors that further support the “small numbers”
The subsistence harvest of marine mammals transcends the nutritional and economic values attributed to the animal and is an integral part of the cultural identity of the region's Alaska Native communities. Inedible parts of the whale provide Native artisans with materials for cultural handicrafts, and the hunting itself perpetuates Native traditions by transmitting traditional skills and knowledge to younger generations (NOAA, 2007).
The Cook Inlet beluga whale has traditionally been hunted by Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes. For several decades prior to the 1980s, the Native Village of Tyonek residents were the primary subsistence hunters of Cook Inlet beluga whales. During the 1980s and 1990s, Alaska Natives from villages in the western, northwestern, and North Slope regions of Alaska either moved to or visited the south central region and participated in the yearly subsistence harvest (Stanek, 1994). From 1994 to 1998, NMFS estimated 65 whales per year (range 21-123) were taken in this harvest, including those successfully taken for food and those struck and lost. NMFS concluded that this number was high enough to account for the estimated 14 percent annual decline in the population during this time (Hobbs
On October 15, 2008, NMFS published a final rule that established long-term harvest limits on Cook Inlet beluga whales that may be taken by Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes (73 FR 60976). That rule prohibits harvest for a 5-year interval period if the average stock abundance of Cook Inlet beluga whales over the prior five-year interval is below 350 whales. Harvest levels for the current 5-year planning interval (2013-2017) are zero because the average stock abundance for the previous five-year period (2008-2012) was below 350 whales. Based on the average abundance over the 2002-2007 period, no hunt occurred between 2008 and 2012 (NMFS, 2008a). The Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council, which managed the Alaska Native Subsistence fishery with NMFS, was disbanded by a unanimous vote of the Tribes' representatives on June 20, 2012. At this time, no harvest is expected in 2015 or, likely, in 2016.
Data on the harvest of other marine mammals in Cook Inlet are lacking. Some data are available on the subsistence harvest of harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and killer whales in Alaska in the marine mammal stock assessments. However, these numbers are for the Gulf of Alaska including Cook Inlet, and they are not indicative of the harvest in Cook Inlet.
There is a low level of subsistence hunting for harbor seals in Cook Inlet. Seal hunting occurs opportunistically among Alaska Natives who may be fishing or travelling in the upper Inlet near the mouths of the Susitna River, Beluga River, and Little Susitna. Some detailed information on the subsistence harvest of harbor seals is available from past studies conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (Wolfe
Section 101(a)(5)(D) also requires NMFS to determine that the taking will not have an unmitigable adverse effect on the availability of marine mammal species or stocks for subsistence use. NMFS has defined “unmitigable adverse impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing subsistence users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
The primary concern is the disturbance of marine mammals through the introduction of anthropogenic sound into the marine environment during the proposed survey. Marine mammals could be behaviorally harassed and either become more difficult to hunt or temporarily abandon traditional hunting grounds. However, the proposed survey will not have any impacts to beluga harvests as none currently occur in Cook Inlet. Additionally, subsistence harvests of other marine mammal species are limited in Cook Inlet.
50 CFR 216.04(a)(12) requires IHA applicants for activities that take place in Arctic waters to provide Plan of Cooperation or information that identifies what measures have been taken and/or will be taken to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses. The entire upper Cook unit and a portion of the lower Cook unit falls north of 60° N, or within the region NMFS has designated as an Arctic subsistence use area. EMALL provided detailed information in Section 8 of their application regarding their plan to cooperate with local subsistence users and stakeholders regarding the potential effects of their proposed activity. There are several villages in EMALL's proposed project area that have traditionally hunted marine mammals,
Villages in lower Cook Inlet adjacent to EMALL's proposed survey area (Kenai, Salamatof, and Nikiski) have either not traditionally hunted beluga whales, or at least not in recent years, and rarely do they harvest sea lions. These villages more commonly harvest harbor seals, with Kenai reporting an average of about 13 per year between 1992 and 2008 (Wolfe
Although marine mammals remain an important subsistence resource in Cook Inlet, the number of animals annually harvested is low, and are primarily harbor seals. Much of the harbor seal harvest occurs incidental to other fishing and hunting activities, and at areas outside of the EMALL's proposed survey areas such as the Susitna Delta or the west side of lower Cook Inlet. Also, EMALL is unlikely to conduct activity in the vicinity of any of the river mouths where large numbers of seals haul out.
EMALL and NMFS recognize the importance of ensuring that Alaska Natives and federally recognized tribes are informed, engaged, and involved during the permitting process and will continue to work with the Alaska Natives and tribes to discuss operations and activities.
Prior to offshore activities EMALL will to consult with nearby communities such as Tyonek, Salamatof, and the Kenaitze Indian Tribe to attend and present the program description prior to operations within those areas.
If a conflict does occur with project activities involving subsistence or fishing, the project manager will immediately contact the affected party to resolve the conflict.
The project will not have any effect on beluga whale harvests because no beluga harvest will take place in 2016. Additionally, the proposed seismic survey area is not an important native subsistence site for other subsistence species of marine mammals thus, the number harvested is expected to be extremely low. The timing and location of subsistence harvest of Cook Inlet harbor seals may coincide with EMALL's project, but because this subsistence hunt is conducted opportunistically and at such a low level (NMFS, 2013c), EMALL's program is not expected to have an impact on the subsistence use of harbor seals. Moreover, the proposed survey would result in only temporary disturbances. Accordingly, the specified activity would not impact the availability of these other marine mammal species for subsistence uses.
NMFS anticipates that any effects from EMALL's proposed survey on marine mammals, especially harbor seals and Cook Inlet beluga whales, which are or have been taken for subsistence uses, would be short-term, site specific, and limited to inconsequential changes in behavior and mild stress responses. NMFS does not anticipate that the authorized taking of affected species or stocks will reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (1) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (2) directly displacing subsistence users; or (3) placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and that cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met. Based on the description of the specified activity, the measures described to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes, and the required mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS has determined that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from EMALL's proposed activities.
There is one marine mammal species listed as endangered under the ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the proposed project area: The Cook Inlet beluga whale. In addition, the proposed action could occur within 10 miles of designated critical habitat for the Cook Inlet beluga whale. NMFS's Permits and Conservation Division has initiated consultation with NMFS' Alaska Region Protected Resources Division under section 7 of the ESA. This consultation will be concluded prior to issuing any final authorization.
NMFS has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the take of marine mammals incidental to issuance of IHAs for the proposed oil and gas activities in Cook Inlet. The Draft EA has been made available for public comment concurrently with this proposed authorization (see
As a result of these preliminary determinations, we propose to issue an IHA to EMALL for taking marine mammals incidental to a geophysical and geotechnical survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska, 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).
Exxon Mobil Alaska LNG LLC (EMALL), 3201 C Street; Suite 506, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, is hereby authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)), to harass small numbers of marine mammals incidental to specified activities associated with a marine geophysical and geotechnical survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska, contingent upon the following conditions:
1. This Authorization is valid from March 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
2. This Authorization is valid only for EMALL's activities associated with survey operations that shall occur within the areas denoted as Marine Terminal Survey Area and Pipeline Survey Area as depicted in the attached Figure 1 of EMALL's October 2015 application to the National Marine Fisheries Service.
3.
(a) The incidental taking of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only,
(i) Odontocetes: see Table 1 (attached) for authorized species and take numbers.
(ii) Pinnipeds: see Table 1 (attached) for authorized species and take numbers.
(iii) If any marine mammal species are encountered during activities that are not listed in Table 1 (attached) for authorized taking and are likely to be exposed to sound pressure levels (SPLs) greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for impulsive sound of 120 dB re 1μPa (rms), then the Holder of this Authorization must alter speed or course or shut-down the sound source to avoid take.
(b) The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or death of any of the species listed in Table 1 or the taking of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension or revocation of this Authorization.
(c) If the number of detected takes of any marine mammal species listed in Table 1 is met or exceeded, EMALL shall immediately cease survey operations involving the use of active sound sources (
4. The authorization for taking by harassment is limited to the following acoustic sources (or sources with comparable frequency and intensity) absent an amendment to this Authorization:
(a) EdgeTech3200 Sub-bottom profiler chirp;
(b) Applied Acoustics AA301 Sub-bottom profiler boomer;
(c) A 60 in
5. The taking of any marine mammal in a manner prohibited under this Authorization must be reported immediately to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS or her designee at (301) 427-8401.
6. The holder of this Authorization must notify the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, or her designee at least 48 hours prior to the start of survey activities (unless constrained by the date of issuance of this Authorization in which case notification shall be made as soon as possible) at 301-427-8484 or to
7.
(a) Utilize a minimum of two NMFS- qualified PSOs per source vessel (one on duty and one off-duty) to visually watch for and monitor marine mammals near the seismic source vessels during daytime operations (from nautical twilight-dawn to nautical twilight-dusk) and before and during start-ups of sound sources day or night. Two PSVOs will be on each source vessel, and two PSVOs will be on a support vessel to observe the exclusion and disturbance zones. PSVOs shall have access to reticle binoculars (7x50) and long-range binoculars (40x80). PSVO shifts shall last no longer than 4 hours at a time. PSVOs shall also make observations during daytime periods when the sound sources are not operating for comparison of animal abundance and behavior, when feasible. When practicable, as an additional means of visual observation, EMALL's vessel crew may also assist in detecting marine mammals.
(b) Record the following information when a marine mammal is sighted:
(i) Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, apparent reaction to the airguns or vessel (
(ii) Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel (including type of equipment operating), Beaufort sea state and wind force, visibility, and sun glare; and
(iii) The data listed under Condition 7(d)(ii) shall also be recorded at the start and end of each observation watch and during a watch whenever there is a change in one or more of the variables.
(c) Establish a 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) “disturbance zone” for belugas, and groups of five or more harbor porpoises and killer whales as well as a 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) “exclusion zone” (EZ) for cetaceans and pinnipeds respectively before equipment is in operation.
(d) Visually observe the entire extent of the EZ (180 dB re 1 μPa [rms] for cetaceans and 190 dB re 1 μPa [rms] for pinnipeds) using NMFS-qualified PSVOs, for at least 30 minutes (min) prior to starting the survey (day or night). If the PSVO finds a marine mammal within the EZ, EMALL must delay the seismic survey until the marine mammal(s) has left the area. If the PSVO sees a marine mammal that surfaces, then dives below the surface, the PSVO shall wait 30 min. If the PSVO sees no marine mammals during that time, they should assume that the animal has moved beyond the EZ. If for any reason the entire radius cannot be seen for the entire 30 min (
(e) Alter speed or course during survey operations if a marine mammal, based on its position and relative motion, appears likely to enter the relevant EZ. If speed or course alteration is not safe or practicable, or if after alteration the marine mammal still appears likely to enter the EZ, further mitigation measures, such as a shutdown, shall be taken.
(f) Shutdown the sound source(s) if a marine mammal is detected within, approaches, or enters the relevant EZ. A shutdown means all operating sound sources are shut down (
(g) Survey activity shall not resume until the PSVO has visually observed the marine mammal(s) exiting the EZ and is not likely to return, or has not been seen within the EZ for 15 min for species with shorter dive durations (small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 min for species with longer dive durations (large odontocetes, including killer whales and beluga whales).
(h) Marine geophysical surveys may continue into night and low-light hours if such segment(s) of the survey is initiated when the entire relevant EZs can be effectively monitored visually (
(i) No initiation of survey operations involving the use of sound sources is permitted from a shutdown position at night or during low-light hours (such as in dense fog or heavy rain).
(j) If a beluga whale is visually sighted approaching or within the relevant160dB disturbance zone, survey activity will not commence or the sound source(s) shall be shut down until the animals are no longer present within the 160-dB zone.
(h) Whenever aggregations or groups of killer whales and/or harbor porpoises are detected approaching or within the 160-dB disturbance zone, survey activity will not commence or the sound source(s) shall be shut-down until the animals are no longer present within the 160-dB zone. An aggregation or group of whales/porpoises shall consist of five or more individuals of any age/sex class.
(i) EMALL must not operate within 10 miles (16 km) of the mean higher high water (MHHW) line of the Susitna Delta (Beluga River to the Little Susitna River) between April 15 and October 15 (to avoid any effects to belugas in an important feeding and breeding area).
(j) Survey operations involving the use of airguns, sub-bottom profiler, or vibracore must cease if takes of any marine mammal are met or exceeded.
8.
(a) Submit a weekly field report, no later than close of business (Alaska time) each Thursday during the weeks when in-water survey activities take place. The field reports will summarize species detected, in-water activity occurring at the time of the sighting, behavioral reactions to in-water activities, and the number of marine mammals taken. The weekly reports will also contain information about which km
(b) Submit a monthly report, no later than the 15th of each month, to NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division for all months during which in-water seismic survey activities occur. These reports must contain and summarize the following information:
(i) Dates, times, locations, heading, speed, weather, sea conditions (including Beaufort sea state and wind force), and associated activities during all operations and marine mammal sightings;
(ii) Species, number, location, distance from the vessel, and behavior of any marine mammals, as well as associated activity (type of equipment in use and number of shutdowns), observed throughout all monitoring activities;
(iii) An estimate of the number (by species) of: (A) pinnipeds that have been exposed to the activity (based on visual observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) and/or 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) with a discussion of any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited; and (B) cetaceans that have been exposed to the activity (based on visual observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 120 dB or 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) and/or 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) with a discussion of any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited.
(iv) A description of the implementation and effectiveness of the: (A) terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion's Incidental Take Statement (ITS); and (B) mitigation measures of this Authorization. For the Biological Opinion, the report shall confirm the implementation of each Term and Condition, as well as any conservation recommendations, and describe their effectiveness, for minimizing the adverse effects of the action on Endangered Species Act-listed marine mammals.
(c) Submit a draft Technical Report on all activities and monitoring results to NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division within 90 days of the completion of the seismic survey. The Technical Report will include the following information:
(i) Summaries of monitoring effort (
(ii) Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing detectability of marine mammals (
(iii) Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine mammal sightings, including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender categories (if determinable), group sizes, and ice cover;
(iv) Analyses of the effects of survey operations; and
(v) Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and without survey activities (and other variables that could affect detectability), such as: (A) initial sighting distances versus survey activity state; (B) closest point of approach versus survey activity state; (C) observed behaviors and types of movements versus survey activity state; (D) numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus survey activity state; (E) distribution around the source vessels versus survey activity state; and (F) estimates of take by Level B harassment based on presence in the relevant 120 dB or 160 dB harassment zone.
(d) Submit a final report to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, within 30 days after receiving comments from NMFS on the draft report. If NMFS decides that the draft report needs no comments, the draft report shall be considered to be the final report.
(e) EMALL must immediately report to NMFS if 25 belugas are detected within the relevant 120 dB or 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) disturbance zone during survey operations to allow NMFS to consider making necessary adjustments to monitoring and mitigation.
9. (a) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this Authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or mortality (
(i) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
(ii) The name and type of vessel involved;
(iii) The vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
(iv) Description of the incident;
(v) Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(vi) Water depth;
(vii) Environmental conditions (
(viii) Description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(ix) Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
(x) The fate of the animal(s); and
(xi) Photographs or video footage of the animal (if equipment is available).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with EMALL to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. EMALL may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter or email, or telephone.
(b) In the event that EMALL discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
(c) In the event that EMALL discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in Condition 2 of this Authorization (
10. EMALL is required to comply with the Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions of the ITS corresponding to NMFS' Biological Opinion issued to both U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and NMFS' Office of Protected Resources.
11. A copy of this Authorization and the ITS must be in the possession of all contractors and PSOs operating under the authority of this Incidental Harassment Authorization.
12. Penalties and Permit Sanctions: Any person who violates any provision of this Incidental Harassment Authorization is subject to civil and criminal penalties, permit sanctions, and forfeiture as authorized under the MMPA.
13. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the Holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein or if the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals, or if there is an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for subsistence uses.
We request comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of the Notice of Proposed IHA for EMALL. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on EMALL's request for an MMPA authorization.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(b) Each agency that owns an existing Federal building shall adopt the
(c) Each agency that leases space in an existing building shall adopt the Standards as the minimum level acceptable for managing the earthquake risks in that building. This requirement shall apply to existing leases or leases existing at the time of issuance of updated Standards only to the extent appropriate, as determined by the leasing agency. With respect to leases for a building being constructed to accommodate a Federal agency under the authority in 40 U.S.C. 585(a), the leasing agency shall ensure that the building complies with the earthquake-resistant design and construction standards that would apply to a building constructed by the agency pursuant to section 3(a) of this order. With respect to such leases entered into under authority other than 40 U.S.C. 585(a), the leasing agency shall ensure that the building complies with the earthquake-resistant design and construction standards that would apply to a building constructed by the agency pursuant to section 3(a) of this order, to the extent permitted by law.
(d) Agencies may require higher performance levels than exist in the codes and standards described in sections 3(a), (b), and (c) of this order.
(b) Agencies whose activities are covered by this order shall designate one or more Seismic Safety Coordinator(s) to serve as focal points for the agency's compliance with this order and to participate in the ICSSC as appropriate. Within 30 days of the date of this order, each agency shall identify its Seismic Safety Coordinator(s) to the Director of NIST.
(c) The Director of NIST, on behalf of the ICSSC, shall issue implementing guidelines to assist agency compliance with this order within 8 months of the date of this order. The implementing guidelines shall provide specific guidance, including guidance about the roles and responsibilities of the agencies under section 2 of this order. The implementing guidelines shall
(d) The Director of NIST, on behalf of the ICSSC, shall provide assistance in interpreting the implementing guidelines to the Federal departments and agencies.
(e) The ICSSC shall publish updated Standards for assessing and enhancing the earthquake resilience of existing buildings as required by this order. The ICSSC shall review and update the Standards as needed to comply with this order at the maximum interval of every 6 years. Participation in the ICSSC shall continue to be open to all agencies with programs affected by this order. The Director of NIST shall provide support for the secretariat of the ICSSC and determine the frequency and scope of the ICSSC meetings as necessary to support this order.
(f) Agencies whose activities are covered by this order shall submit biennial reports to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Director of NIST on their progress in implementing the order, commencing 2 years from the date of this order.
(g) Agency compliance shall be summarized in the NEHRP reports to the Congress.
(a) “building” means any structure, fully or partially enclosed, used or intended for sheltering persons or property;
(b) “alteration to an existing building” means an action that alters, as defined in 40 U.S.C. 3301(a)(1), a building and that significantly extends the building's useful life and totals more than the replacement values established in the Standards for the building's assigned Seismic Design Category; and
(c) “programming” means developing and validating project assumptions, scope, budgets, and implementation strategy for a building.
(b) Even when otherwise eligible for an exemption under this section, each agency shall strive to comply with the purposes, goals, and requirements set forth in this order to the maximum extent practicable.
(c) If the head of an agency issues an exemption under this section, the agency must notify the Director of OMB in writing within 30 days of issuance of the exemption under this subsection.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party
(d) Nothing in this order shall apply to assistance provided for emergency work essential to save lives and protect property and public health and safety, performed pursuant to agencies' statutory authorities, and sections 402, 403, 502, and 503 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the “Stafford Act”) (42 U.S.C. 5170a, 5170b, 5192, and 5193), or for temporary housing assistance programs and individual and family grants performed pursuant to section 408 of the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5174). This order shall, however, apply to other provisions of the Stafford Act after a Presidentially declared major disaster or emergency when assistance actions involve new construction or alterations to an existing building.
(e) This order applies only to buildings within the United States and its territories and possessions.
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 |